39 



STATE OF NEW YORK 



2^- ^^0^3 



REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



OF THE 



Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate 
the Affairs of the City of New York 



ON THE 



BOARD OF EDUCATION 

February 15, 1922 




ALBANY 

J. B. LYON COMPANY. PRINTERS 

1922 



j LIBFIARY OF CONGRESS 

I APR 31922 



^ CONTENTS 



PAGE 

REPORT 5 

APPENDIX 17 

Education under the Greater New York Charter 17 

Education under Chapter 786, Laws of 1917 as amended 22 

Inadequate School Accommodations 31 

Fire Hazards in the Schools 39 

Failure to Repair Fire Damage to Board of Education Building 43 

Incomplete By-Laws and Delayed Minutes 45 

Conflict between Board and Superintendent 47 

Conflict between Board and Municipal Authorities 50 

Administration of Public School System 58 

Limitation of Powers of Board of Education 58 

Increase in the Powers of School Superintendents 58 

Perpetuation of Board of Superintendents 58 

Perpetuation of Bureau of Compulsory Education 59 

Controversy over State School Moneys 60 

Increase inJlMandatory Appropriation to 4.9 mills 61 

Historical Development of Article IX, Section 1 of State Constitution 68 

Dutch Colonial Period 70 

English Colonial Period 70 

Education under the First Constitution 71 

Education under the Second Constitution 74 

Education under the Third Constitution 75 

Summary 77 

Evolution of Public Education in the Present City of New York 79 

The Former City of New York 79 

Brooklyn 88 

Queens and Richmond 91 



REPORT 

February 15, 1922. 
To the Legislature: 

■ The administration of the public schools of the City is and 
for years has been weak and inefficient, and does not measure up 
to the reasonable requirements of the school children of the City, 
or the expectations and desires of the people of the City, or of 
the State which is charged with ultimate responsibility for main- 
taining efficient and adequate common schools in every part of 
the State. 

The deficiencies ;ire apparent. 

A. INADEQUATE SCHOOL ACCOMMODATIONS. 

In December, 1917, the month before the present Board of 
Education took office, there were 746,11-1 children registered 
in the day elementary schools, of whom 34,153 were on part time 
and 76,214 on the so-called duplicate form of organization. In 
the last month for which figures are now available there were 
817,210 children on register in the day elementary schools, of 
whom 81,242 were on part time and 194,234 on double session. 

In the day high schools there were 58,063 registered in Decem- 
ber, 1917. none of whom were on double session and only 1,796 
were on part time. In October, 1921, the register had increased 
to 82,265 and there were 1,516 children on double session and 
33.892 on part time. 

These figure-; shf>w insufficient school accommodations to care 
for the gTowth of school population. 

The cap;icity of new elementary school buildings and additions 
opened during the past four years is as follows : 



Year 
1918 




Xo. of New Buildings 
or Additions Opened 

2 


No 


. of Sittings 
Therein 

1,294 


1919 

1920 

1921 to Dec. 


6 


4 

None 

16* 


1,380 

None 

19.203 


Total . 


22 




21,877 











Of the 10 ojiened in 1921. all hut two were opened after Septemher 1st. 



During the preceding four years, 44 new elementary buildings 
or additions were opened, with 52,847 sittings, a better, but still 
inadequate showing. 

This unfortunate condition is only partly due to lack of appro- 
priations. Exasperating delays and a shifting policy are equally 
responsible. The total corporate stock authorizations from Janu- 
ary 1, 1910, to June 30, 1921, for school buildings amounted to 
$08,744,732.11, while the expenditures during the same period 
amounted to only $46,092,839.88. Fifteen million of this 
authorization was made in 1921, but the ten million authoriza- 
tion of earlier years was revoked on December 30, 1918, without 
the expenditure of any part of it in the meantime, and 
was subsequently appropriated for the same purposes for which 
it was originally designed. This resulted in holding up the build- 
ing program at the time of its greatest need. A detailed state- 
ment of the authorizations and cash expenditure from 1910 to 
1921 will be found on page 38 of the appendix. 

It will be noted that the expenditures of the three and a half 
years, 1918 to July, 1921, were but $15,224,331.97, which, in 
view of the depreciated value of the dollar, represents not more 
than $8,000,000 in building value on the basis of 1910 to 1917, 
or about one-half of the previous four-year totals. 

The average annual authorization for the eleven and a half 
years covered in the annexed table was $5,977,802.79 and the 
average annual expenditure $4,008,073.03. 

The inadequacy of school buildings has inevitably resulted in 

(1) Inadequate instruciion, keeping scholars on part tinfrie. 

{2) Overcrowding of the school buildings ivifh resulting dan- 
ger to snnitntion and health. 



B. FIRE HAZARDS. 

In August, 1921, there were 7,353 violations of fire prevention 
rules recorded against 496 of the City's 695 school build- 
ings. The estimated cost of removing these violations is about 
$4,500,000. Some of the violations are serious, as, for example, 
stairways that are not enclosed with fire and smoke-proof parti- 



tions and not provided with self-closing doors ; interior fire alarm 
systems that do not work; wooden and not self-closing fireproof 
doors along the line of exit stairways; no hand fire extinguishers; 
and storage of dangerously inflammable materials in non-fireproof 
rooms or compartments. The Superintendent of School Build- 
ings wrote the Board of Education, March 23, 1921, as follows: 

" This with the continued growth of the schools and con- 
sequent overcrowding and congestion causes me great uneasi- 
ness and distress of mind. If the fire prevention work was 
and is required for schools under normal conditions, how 
MUK'li more im])ortant must it be when a building contains 
quite one-half or more in excess of the normal . . . why 
paint and renovate the interior of a building when there are 
essential items of fire }>revention work to be performed which 
would actually operate to safegitard life and lessen fire 
risk r' ' 

The total authorizations and expenditures for fire prevention 
work since September 16, 1904, is as follows: 

Date of Amount of 

Authorization Authorization Expenditures Balance 

Sept. 16, 1904 .$300, 000 00 $300, 000 00 

.")aO, 000 00 550, 000 00 

April 3,1908 1.000,000 00 1.000,000 00 

June 3,1910 450,000 00 450,000 00 

July 17, 1911 450, 000 00 447, 666 59 .$2, 333 41 

Nov. 19, 1915 250, 000 00 2.50, 000 00 

July 7. 1916 250, 000 00 250, 000 00 

April 20, 1917 250, 000 00 240, 660 85 9, 339 15 

April 22,1921 250,000 00 250,000 00 

C. XEGLIGEXT ADMIISTISTRATION. 

Other deficiencies of administration appear from the failure 
to repair the education building, and the condition of by-laws and 
minutes of the Board of Education. In February, 1918, the 
seventh, eighth and ninth floors of the Hall of the Board of Edu- 
cation, at 500 Park Avenue, housing the executive oflices of the 
Board, were burned out. Bids for the rebuilding of these floors 
were not opened until December 7, 1921, nearly four years after 
the fire. During this interval the work of the Board has been 
seriously interfered with befeause of compulsory vacancy of the 
three top floors of its building. The Bureau of School Buildings 
had to be moved to inadequate quarters in the Municipal Build- 
ing, several miles away from the other offices of the Board, The 



8 

delay in agreeing on new plans, in securing an appropriation and 
in letting the contract is open to serious criticism. ISTo business 
corporation would tolerate such methods. See testimony of 
President of Board of Education, vol. 3, p. 1321. 

The law of 1917 so changed the organization of the school sys- 
tem that a complete revision of the by-laws was necessary in order 
to make them conform with the new statute. This revision has 
not been made. A few sections were revised but the bulk of the 
by-laws was still in the form of a large octavo volume published 
in 1914 with hundreds of amendment slips pasted in, many of 
which antedate the law of 1917. 

The minutes of Board meetings are records of great im- 
portance to teachers, board members, board officers and city 
authorities, as they have the force of law within the scope of the 
powers delegated to the Board of Education by the Legislature. 
The last volume of minutes to be furnished with a printed index 
is that for 1915. The minutes of board meetings are not or- 
dinarily available until two months after the meeting. 

Such conditions could not exist with a capable Board. They 
have failed not only in matters wholly in their control, l)nt they 
show no capacity to secure effective administration through the 
co-operation of other governmental agencies on which they de- 
pend, or to secure the enactment of better laws by inspiring public 
confidence and arousing public opinion. They have shown little 
or no capacity for Icadershij) for many years in the discharge of 
the important trust confided to them. 

Ujisound L erjisla Hon. 

Responsibility for such eoiiditions may not be easily a])]X)r- 
tioned. It doubtless rests primarily on the system of making 
purely political appointments to the Board of Education. Such 
appointments are made witliout any check of non-partisan ap- 
proval or confirmation. Each incoming mayor seeks, and usually 
gains, a large degree of political control over the Board of Educa- 
tion. The members of the present Board were all appointed by 
the present Mayor under the amendment of 1917. Such political 
appointments are in strict accord with the ancient plan of dele- 
gating educational functions to localities, but the State has 
largely outgrown and changed the system by increasing State 
power over local administration, while furnishing State aid to 
meet new requirements imposed by law. The old system is not 



adapted in principle to a municipality like N^ew York, State 
jurisdiction over schools is exercised by the Universitv of the 
State, which is non-partisan in its organization and sy)iriT. Some 
plan should be devised for the creation of an equally non-partisan 
and representative body in the City. 

Apart from this basic fault, it is desirable to review some 
specific faults of organization, which should be removed to give 
assurance that a competent board could successfully discharge 
its duty. 

1. COMPLICATED AND ANTIQUATED PROVISIONS 
OF LAW PEQUIPJNG THE CO-OPERATION OF MANY 
OTHER. BRANCHES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT IN 
BUILDING OPERATIONS WITH RESULTING DELAYS, 
OFTEN AMOUNTING TO A VETO OF A BUILDING 
PROJECT. 

The first and most important of these objectionable provisions 
is the provision of law making the Board of Education dependent 
upon the action of the Board of Estimate and the Sinking Fund 
Commission for appropriations and acquisitions of sites for 
school houses. There is a general concurrence in the necessity of 
making the Board of Education independent in this respect. It 
may therefore be assumed that there is but one opinion upon the 
subject, and that the necessity is great. The Committee inquired 
with particularity as to the steps required to be taken to build a 
school house, and found that there were at least twenty-seven, 
eacli one involving considerable delay and the whole practice 
likely to discourage those who were engaged in the undertaking. 
Most of them are unnecessary for the protection of the City's 
interest, and hinder the prompt building of school houses. An 
exhibit showing these steps in detail will be found on page 3(5 
of the appendix. 

In two instances it was found that twenty years or more had 
elapsed from the time the recommendation for a new building 
was made by a local school board and the time when the building 
was opened for use. P. S. No. 5-L Brooklyn, for example, was 
recommended by the school board of Brooklyn in 1001 ; the con- 
tract date for its completion is »Se])tember, 1922. 

Examination of the record of some twenty schools on the cur- 
rent building program shows that plans and specifications wore 
before the Board of Estimate in one instance for 35fi davs, au- 



10 

other for 211 days, and in ciglit caso-; for more tluiu 50 davs. 
This did not take into acconnt the time between the retnrn by 
the Board of Estimate and a rcsninnission by the Board of Va\u- 
eation. In one case the same matter was fonr times before the 
Board of Estimate. In fonr other eases tlu^ same nuitter was 
before the Board of Estinmte three times. 

2. STATrTORV POWKKS BIJOPKRLV BELOXGIXG 
TO THE BOAIU) OF EDICATIOX NOW VESTED EN- 
BODIES OR OFFICIALS XO^nXALLY SEBORDIXATE 
TO THE BOARD BUT IX FACT SUPERIOR IX RESPECT 
OF SUCH POWERS. 

The snperinten(h'nt of sejiools, the Board of Superintendents. 
and the Bureau of Compulsory Edncation, all have a tixed tenure 
of office, and although chosen by the Board, ])ossess important 
powers of administration which are exercised independently of 
and often in opposition to the desires of the Board itself. 

It is unnecessary to enumerate these important powers which 
are readily referred to in the statute, and have been frequently 
the cause of conflict between the boards and officials named ami 
the Board of Edncation. Many of these powers are anu)n<>' the 
most important exercised in the administration of tl.'e schools. 

3. EREQUEXT CHAXGES AXD COXELICT OF LAWS 
GOVERXIXG THE ADMIXISTRATIOX OF SCHOOLS. 

The Board of Education originally consisted of nineleon mem- 
bers. It was changed in 1901 to forty-six members, and in l')17 
to seven members. The charter was radically revised in 181)7 
and in 1901, and its ])rovisions extensively moditied by amend- 
ments to the State Education Law in 1917, each change involving 
important changes in the ]dan of administration of the schools 
and their relation to other city agencies and the State. A com- 
parative statement of the principal changes effected by the statute 
of 1917 in the law of 1901 will be found on page 22 of the 
appendix. 

Under the act of 1917 conflicts have arisen by reason of the 
uncertainty of the law between the Board of Education and the 
Commissioner of Education at Albany, between the Board of 
Education and the munici])al authorities relative to their res])ect- 
ive powers, and between the Board of Edncation and the snporin- 



11 

teudeiit of schools, if not between the Board of Education and 
the Board of Superintendents and associate superintendents. 

There has been a faihire to concentrate in clear and unmis- 
takable language the full responsibility for the administration of 
the public school system on the Board of Education, the municipal 
authorities, or the State. Groping for a remedy they have found 
none because tbe fundamental error of appointing a politir-al 
Board of Education has remained. 

Finances. 

Fortunately the financial statement for education in the City 
is not complicated. The expenditures since 1910 have been as 
follows : 

Tear Expenditures. 

1910 $28,456,945 08 

1911 28,958,179 29 

1912 33,791,974 40 

1913 35,481,641 12 

1914 38,185,495 90 

1915 39,797,960 64 

1916 39,708,764 22 

1917 41,101,074 41 

1918 43,884,893 59 

1919 45,490.121 68 

1920 66,194,668 04 

1921 (first 6 nios.) 44,828,326 69 

1922 (budget) *88,798,546 81 

* Tiichuling $18,097,534..-,! from the State. 

The normal increase for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 has 
been augmented by the Lockwood-Donohue act in the sum of 
$30,000,000. This has been devoted to the pay of teachers. The 
annual normal increase may be roughly taken as $2,000,000. 

The apportionment of State moneys to the City since 1914 has 
been as follows : 



J 2 

Amount Apportioned 
)'(■■! r to the City 

191-! $1,923,025 00 

19i:> 2,115,679 73. 

191fi 2,220,730 03 ' 

1917 2,114.887 16 

1918 2,321,191 13 

1919 2,700, n57 19 

1920 5,025.570 17 

1921 16,938,023 85 

1922 *18,097.534 51 

* K -lima ted. 

The increase of apportionment for 1922 over 1919, the period 
during which the mandatory increase due to legislation has oc- 
curred, has been about $15,000,000, or one-half of the amount of 
the increased charge due to these laws. 

The City complains of the increase effected by law. As educa- 
tion is a State function, although commonly delegated to munici- 
palities, it would appear that when the State interferes to increase 
the cost of ediication in so considerable an amount, it should pro- 
vide ways and means for defraying such additional expenses with- 
out embarrassment to the municipalities. The State's taxing- 
power is unlimited, and it is a matter of comparative indifference 
to any part of the State whether the funds for education are 
raised by State or local tax. 

The constitution limits the debt incurring power of cities to ten 
per cent of the assessed value of real estate, and the taxing power 
to two per cent of the assessed value of real and personal property. 
The^o limitations which are proper and useful, were enacted with 
reference to the normal expense for education. Such increase in 
cost is the result of a change of policy in the entire State as to the 
standard of teadiing, which it is expected will be much improved 
by making the teachers' profession more attractive. It is true that 
this augmented cost was favored by substantially all the members 
of the legislature from the City, and the present administration of 
the City claims to have favored it ; but it was done by State author- 
ity, and the Committee finds no evidence tending to show that the 
additional expense would in fact have been incurred in the absence 
of legislative enactment. It doubtless seems strange to one un- 
familiar with the real financial situation of the City and such an 



13 

increased charge should be a source of eniharrassmeut. The City 
has a debt incurring capacity of more than a l>illion dollars, a 
taxing cai>acity of more than two hundred million dollars, niul an 
unencumbered income of more than sixty millions. But by reason 
of the course of past and present administrations, the City has been 
for some years past near its debt limit, if it has not exceeded it, 
and grave question exists as to its having exceeded its tax limit in 
the last two annual assessments. 

In preparing the budget for 1921, the City under claim of neces- 
sity, omitted $27,000,000 from the school appropriation, and met 
it afterwards by special revenue bonds, and other devices, throwing 
most of the charge over on to the year 1922. The Comptroller ad- 
vised striking ten million dollars from the 1922 budget for educa- 
tion on the ground that otherwise the tax imposed would exceed 
the constitutional limit. It is unadvisable at present to increase 
charges upon the City and it would seem to be desirable for the 
State to establish a plan of appropriations increasing annually 
until it is sufficient to meet the additional charge for education it 
has created since 1920. 

While this report is confined to matters relating to the City of 
oSTew York, there is a like situation in other parts of the State, and 
the problem of providing for the cost of education under these 
laws will require solution in other important muncipalities. It is 
therefore a State as well as a City issue. 

The legislature has from time to time fixed a mandators- tax for 
school purposes in the City. It fixed the tax at four mills in 1898, 
three mills in 1903, and 4.9 mills in 1917. These charges were 
made in the exercise of State authority to insure the maintenance 
of schools, but they may be regarded as representing a minimum 
below which the cost of education may not be reduced rather than 
as an attempt^ to increase the expenditure. For the most part the 
City has made considerable and in many instances large approjjria- 
tions for schools in excess of the mandatory tax. 

XoN-PoT-ITTCAT, BoARO OF EdUCATIOX. 

The problem of securing a Board of Education for the City 
which shall stand for education free from iwlitical considerations, 
is the fundamental one. As the University of the State is the 
State-wide instniment of control in education the meml>ei-s of 
the University of the State resident in the City, now four in 
number, can with the Mayor who should be chairman of the 



14 

Commission, be drafted into service as a Commission to appoint 
members of the City Board of Education. This will give local 
recognition by requiring all members of the Commission to reside 
in the city. By taking over as members of the Commission resi- 
dents of the city who are members of the Board of Regents it 
will insure the performance of the State's obligation and duty 
in education, now greatly increased by the added burden of cost 
which the State assumes. But more important than all else, it 
will take politics out of schools. 

Recommendations 

1. The Conmiittee recommends that the Board of Education of 
the City of New York consist of members appointed by the Com- 
mission as provided in this report. 

2. That the Board of Education be granted complete inde- 
pendence from all municipal control in the acquisition of real 
property for school purposes, by purchase, condemnation, lease 
or otherwise, within the limit of the funds available therefor. 

3. That the Board of Education be granted complete inde- 
pendence from all municipal control in the construction, alteration 
and repair of school buildings, provided that its superintendent of 
school buildings, before starting work, certify in writing that the 
plans and specifications comply with the building and electrical 
codes and the laws of the State; and provided further that 
occupancy shall not be permitted until the superintendent of 
school buildings shall have certified that the building as com- 
pleted complies with the building and electrical codes and the 
laws of the State, but without disturbing the City's jurisdiction 
as to fire prevention. 

-i. That the Board of Education be granted complete inde- 
pendence from all municipal control in the administration and 
expenditure of all school moneys, subject only to audit by the 
Comptroller of the City for the purpose of preventing fraud or 
error. 

5. That the City be required to appropriate in its annual 
budget amount which together with the school moneys which are 
apportioned to the City by the State, wall equal the budget appro- 
priation for schools in the City for the year 1922 ($88,798,- 
546.81) plus an annual increase of two million dollars as repre- 
senting the normal increase of cost ; that the present authorization 



15 

for Iniilding school houses be not revoked and that at least 
$0,000,000 be authorized annually for this purpose. 

(). That the State provide for a gi'aduated increased appro- 
priation for schools until the amount apportioned for the City 
of Xew York shall be increased fifteen million dollars over the 
amount apportioned in 1922. 

7. That sections of the greater New York Charter inconsistent 
with the provisions of the education law be repealed. 

^Vnd the Committee further recommends that as soon as the 
Board of Education is reconstituted under the foregoing recom- 
mendations that the powers of the Board be increased as follows: 

8. That the Board of Education be constituted the fiscal and 
policy determining head of the school system with power to dele- 
gate authority to the Superintendent of Schools, as it may deem 
wise. 

9. That the Board of Education be granted power to establish, 
abolish or consolidate such boards, bureaus and divisions as it 
may deem necessary excepting only the Board of Examiners. 

10. That the Superintendent of Schools and all other officers 
and employees derive their j)Ower and authority from the by-laws 
of the Board of Education, subject only to the provisions of the 
Education Law. 

liespectf ul ly submitted, 

Schuyler M. Meyek, Cluiirman. 
Theodore Douglas Robinson. 
Frederick W. Kavanaugh. 
Maxwell S. Harris. 
Simon L. Adler. 
Sol Ullman. 
John R. Yale. 
Walter W. Westall. 
Elon R. Brown, Counsel. 

I subscribe to the Committee's recommendations except that I 
do not believe that the power of appointment of meml^ers of the 
Board of Education should be exercised by officials elected or 
appointed outside of the City of New York. Irrespective of 
their residence, the Regents are elected by the Legislature. I 
favor confirmation of appointments 'by the Mayor to the Board 
of Edu<*ation by either the Board of Aldermen or by the Board 
of Finance suggested in the Committees first report. 

Theodore Stitt. 



APPENDIX 



Education under the Greater ^BXi Iork Charter. 

The union into one municipality under tiie corporate name of 
the City of l^ew York of "' the various communities lying in and 
about New York harbor, including- the City and County of New 
York, the City of Brooklyn and the County of Kings, the County 
of Richmond and part of the County of Queens," effected by 
Chapter 378 of the Laws of 1897, brought together into one 
fabric the various different threads of educational policy which 
had been spun by the separate statutory provisions enacted by 
the State Legislature for the benefit of the several communities. 

These had been and were of the most diverse character, and 
the recognition in the new charter of many of these local peculiari- 
ties, in response doubtless to strong local pressure to perpetuate 
a time-honored custom or to assure a continuance in ofiice to some 
local officer, made the educational sections of the new instrument 
complex and not simple affairs. 

At the time of consolidation, for example, the old City of New 
York had a Board of Education of 21 members appointed by the 
Mayor. The City of Brooklyn had a Board of Education of 45 
members appointed by the Mayor. In what became the Boroughs 
of Queens and Richmond, there were many indej>endent school 
organizations based on town or school district lines. 

The new charter sought to recogTiize local sentiment. It con- 
tinued the Board of Education of the former City of New York 
as the School Board for the Boroughs of Manhattan and The 
Bronx. It continued the Board of Education of the fonner City 
of Brooklyn as the School Board for the Borough of Brooklyn, 
and it substituted in each of the new Boroughs of Queens and 
Richmond, a Borough School Board of 9 members for the various 
pre-existing local school organizations. This arrangement gave 
each borough a School Board with very considerable powers over 
the schools of the borough. In addition, provision was made for 
a Board of Education of 19 members, consisting of the 4 Chair- 
men of the 4 Borough School Boards, 10 delegates elected from 



18 

its membership by the School Board of Manhattan and The 
Bronx, and 5 delegates chosen similarly by the School Board of 
Brooklyn. This Board of Education was constituted a separate 
corporation and was made the head of the Department of Educa- 
tion, set up as one of the administrative departments of the City. 

The new Board did not enjoy the same degree of independence 
as its predecessors. .On the administrative side, many powers 
previously possessed by the Boards of Education were given to 
the Borough School Boards. On the financial side, there had 
been a gradual growing away from the original idea, whereby 
local school authorities were independent of municipal author- 
ities. The Act of 1851, for example, had given the Board of 
Education corporate powers and had invested it with full control 
of the common schools with power to take and hold property, 
secure proper accountability in the expenditure of school moneys 
and administer the funds derived from the city and State. No 
municipal control was incidental thereto, for the supervisors of 
the city and county were required to raise, for educational pur- 
poses, certain sums easily ascertainable under the law, and " such 
additional sum or sums as the Board of Education * * * 
shall have reported to be necessary." This gave the Board of 
Education a position of peculiar independence in relation to the 
fiscal authorities of the City of JN^ew York, but during the next 
46 years, this independence was steadily and increasingly 
impaired. 

The Board of Education of 1898 had very little financial 
power. It was made the head of a department of the city gov- 
ernment, and by section 1059, the City was given the power to 
determine the amount of money to be allowed from the tax levy 
for the support of the schools. About the only financial functions 
remaining to the Board were the allotment of funds to the 
boroughs on the basis of school population and the number of 
teachers employed, and the control of the special school fund. 

The educational chapter of the charter of 189 Y represents an 
attempt, similar to attempts made before and since, to reconcile 
two hopelessly conflicting theories. The schools cannot be both 
independent and subject to municipal control, and yet the Legis- 
lature has repeatedly enacted laws by which it has endeavored to 
make this paradox work. The school authorities have fought to 
preseiwe every right they ever enjoyed and the city authorities 
have sought, with equal vigor, to supervise and control the expendi- 



19 

ture of city funds appropriated by them for school purposes. A 
clear, consistent and uncompromising enactment by the Legisla- 
ture, settling the many points of controversy, would go far to 
improve school conditions in New York City. 

The charter of 1897 was soon ladically revised. Its successor 
was Chapter 466 of the Laws of 1901, and the educational chap- 
ter of that instrument was until 1917 the basis for the administra- 
tion of the City's public schools. 

The Department of Education was continued as one of the 
administrative departments of the City, and the Board of Edu- 
cation was placed at its head. The former Borough School Boards 
were abolished and the size of the Board of Education increased, 
to provide for borough representation. The new Board consisted ' 
of 46 members, appointed by the Mayor for five year terms, as 
follows : 

22 residents of Manhattan. 

4 residents of The Bronx. 
14 residents of Brookljii. 

4 residents of Queens. 

2 residents of Richmond. 

The Board was given corporate privileges. Among other sig- 
nificant provisions of the new law were the following: 

The Board of Education was to succeed to all the powers 
of the former Board of Education and Borough School 
Boards. 

The Board of Education was to administer all moneys 
available for educational purposes. 

The Board of Education had the power to lease property 
and make contracts. 

The Board of Education had the power to appoint certain 
officers and clerks and to fix their salaries, and to appoint 
and fix the salaries above certain minimums of members of 
the teaching and supervising force. 

There was to be a Board of Superintendents, consisting 
of the City Superintendent and 8 Associate Superintendents, 
the latter to consist of the 4 Borough Superintendents and of 
4 persons selected from the Associate Bcrough Superintend- 
ents, each to hold office until the expiration of the term for 
which he had origin ally boon appointed. 



20 

There were to be 26 District Superintendents, including 
all the Associate Borough Superintendents not appointed to 
the Board of Superintendents. 

There were to be 46 local school boards, each consisting 
of a member of the Board of Education assigned by the 
President of the Board, the District Superintendent of the 
district and 5 persons appointed by the Borough President. 

There was to be a Board of Examiners, to examine 
candidates for teachers' licenses. 

The City was required to supply the Board of Education 
with funds for school purposes annually, amounting to not 
less than 4 mills on the dollar of assessed valuation. 

The Department of Finance was given authority to audit 
the Board's accounts. 

The provisions of this law respecting the organization of the 
school system remained substantially the same during the entire 
life of the educational section of the charter, but the powers of 
the Board of Education were increasingly impaired. Special sal- 
aiy laws were passed by the Legislature, which in effect deprived 
the Board of practically all control over teachers' salaries. By 
Chapter 43 of the Laws of 1903, the amount which the City 
must annually make available for school purposes was reduced 
from 4 mills to 3 mills contemporaneously with an increase in the 
assessed valuation of such magnitude that the yield of the 3-mill 
tax was greater than the yield of the 4-mill tax. Both amounts 
were, however, inadequate, so that the Board of Estimate and 
Apportionment substantially controlled the Board of Education's 
finances by conditioning additional appropriations upon the obser- 
vance of the Board of Estimate's rules and regulations regarding 
the segregation of appropriations and accounting control. The 
tendency grew to regard the Department of Education as a regu- 
lar department of the city government and the Legislature made 
little, if any, effort to realize in its contemporary legislation the 
ideal of educational independence which had been characteristic 
of earlier school legislation (notably Chapter 386 of the Laws of 
1851), and such measure of independence as was contemplated in 
the charter of 1901 was, as indicated above, greatly reduced by 
subsequent legislation or by acquiescence. 

By 1917, the Department of Education was functioning very 
much as a regular city department. The 3-mill allowance was so 



21 

inadequate that the Board of Education would have been help- 
less had the City not granted additional funds to run the schools. 
The budget for 1917, for example, appropriated $41,430,447.49 
for the general and special school funds, while the amount 
yielded by the 3-mill tax and included in the budget for that year, 
was only $25,753,057.53, The Department of Education acted 
with and depended upon other city authorities, such as the Cor- 
poration Counsel, the Department of Finance, Board of Estimate 
and Apportionment and the Sinking Fund Commission, in connec- 
tion with its contracts, leases, real estate transactions and pro- 
posals for the construction of new schools. It is probably safe to 
say that what independence the Board of Education may have 
had under a strict interpretation of the law was not exercised. 

The situation was radically changed by the enactment of Chap- 
ter 786 of the Laws of 1917, which amended the State Education 
Law, by providing for Boards of Education in the several cities 
of the State and v/hich repealed nearly all the sections of the New 
York City Charter with respect to the public school system. The 
advoeates of this legislation contended that public education in 
cities was as much a matter of State concern as in villages and 
to\VTis, and that the many varying laws controlling school systems 
should be brought together and made an integral part of the State 
Education Law. 

The consolidation and unification which was effected, however, 
is strikingly similar to the kind of consolidation effected by the 
first charter of the Greater City, where the customs and machin- 
ery of the two cities of New York and Brookljm wei-e, to a con- 
sideraible extent, perpetuated in the new instrument. The State 
Law of 1917 provides for about as many different kinds of Boards 
of Education as there were before, and it preserves the rights 
enjoyed by certain communities and jealously defended by them. 
It has the virtue of including, in one article, most of the provisions 
of law relative to city schools, but it doea not provide a consistent 
or a uniform svstem of control. 



22 



Education under the Provisions of Chapter T8G, Laws of 
1917, AS Amended through 1921. 

It is not necessary in the present connection to comment on 
the patchwork character of this law. The powers, duties and 
composition of boards of education in the larger cities of the 
State differ amazingly, and the organization of the school sys- 
tems left in some cities to local control is in Xew York pre- 
scribed with regard to certain phases such as the Board of 
Superintendents and the Bureau of Compulsory Education. It 
is enough to compare the conditions under the charter of 1901 
as it stood in 1917, with the present legislative provisions. 

The following analysis of the more important provisions of 
both statutes is submitted in parallel columns to facilitate 
comparison : 



Section Charter Provisions 

1055 School property vested in city 

under control of Board of 

Education. 



1059 Board of Estimate and Board 

of Aldermen given power to 
raise by tax amounts re- 
quired for school purposes, as 
called for by annual city 
budget. 

1060 General and special school 

funds established and Board 
of Education given power to 
administer " all moneys . . . 
available for educational pur- 
poses in the city of New 
York." 



1061 Board of Education created to 

consist of 46 unpaid mem- 
bers appointed by the mayor 
for 5-year terms: 22 from 
Manhattan, 4 from the 
Bronx, 14 from Brooklyn, 4 
from Queens, 2 from Rich- 
mond. 

1062 Board of Education given cor- 

porate powers. 
1064 Board of Education to be rep- 
resentative of entire school 
system. By Sept. 15th to 
submit annually to Board of 
Estimate a detailed estimate 



Section State Law Provisions 
868-3 Charter sec. 1055 not re- 
pealed. Board of Education 
given care, custody and con- 
trol of all city school property. 

Charter sec. 1059 repealed. 



877-7 Charter sec. 1060 repealed. 
General and special school 
funds defined and established, 
and Board of Education given 
power to administer " all 
moneys . . . available for edu- 
cational purposes in the city," 
subject to audit by the Depart- 
ment of Finance. 

865-866 Charter sec. 1061 repealed. 
Board of Education created to 
consist of seven members: two 
from each of the two boroughs 
Avith the largest population, 
and one from each of the other 
three appointed by the mayor 
for seven-year terms. 

300 Boards of education in cities 
made corporations. 

877-1 Charter sec. 1064 repealed. 
Board of Education by Septem- 
ber 1st to submit annual esti- 
mate for ensuing fiscal year to 
Board of Estimate and Appor- 



2 3 



Section Charter Provisions 

of moneys required for next 
calendar year. Board of Esti- 
mate required to appropriate 
for general school fund not 
less than the yield of 3 mills. 
Board of Education to ad- 
minister all moneys subject 
to audit by Department of 
Finance. 



1066 Board of Education empowered 

to dispose of personal prop- 
erty. 

1067 Board of Education empowered 

to appoint secretary, super- 
intendent of school buildings, 
superintendent of school sup- 
plies, city superintendent of 
schools, supervisor of lec- 
tures, director and assist- 
ant director of reference 
and research, and one or 
more auditors; also a chief 
clerk and " such other offi- 
cers, clerks or subordinates 
as it may deem necessary . . . 
and as are provided for by 
the proper appropriations." 
These appointees removable 
for cause by three-fourths 
vote. 



106S Board of Education empowered 
to enact by-laws, rules and 
regulations for the transac- 
tion of its business and " de- 
fining the duties of the city 
superintendent of schools, the 
director and assistant director 
of the Division of Reference 
and Research, the superin- 
tendent of school buildings. 



Section State Law Provisions 
877-7 tionment, which is required to 
appropriate the amount of such 
estimate up to the yield of 4.9 
mills. Board of Estimate au- 
thorized to make additional ap- 
propriations. Board of Edu- 
cation empowered to adminis- 
ter all moneys available for 
educational purposes subject 
to audit by Department of 
877-8 Finance. Board of Education 
may submit special estimates 
to meet emergencies. 
Charter sec. lOGO not repealed. 



868 Charter sec. 1067 repealed. Pow- 
ers and duties of Board of 
Education as follows: To per- 
form any duty imposed by 
State law or regulation of the 
University of the State of New 
York or Commissioner of Edu- 
cation; to create, abolish, 
maintain and consolidate such 
positions, divisions, boards, or 
bureaus as it deems necessary; 
to appoint a superintendent of 
schools, such associate district 
or other superintendents, etc., 
as it deems necessary, and to 
determine their duties, except 
as otherwise prescribed by the 
Education Law; to appoint 

872 district superintendents, di- 
rectors, supervisors, principals, 
teachers and all other members 
of the teaching and supervis- 
ing staff upon recommen- 
dation of the Board of Super- 
intendents (except associate 
superintendents and exam- 
iners) and to appoint asso- 
ciate superintendents and ex- 
aminers and all other em- 
ployees (except members of the 
teaching and supervising staff, 
the appointment of whom, must 
be on recommendation of 
Board of Superintendents). 

868-9 Charter sec. 1068 repealed. 
Board of Education empowered 
to prescribe such regulations 
and by-laws as may be neces- 
sary to make effectual the pro- 
visions of this chapter, etc. 



24 



Section Charter Provisions 

the superintendent of school 
supplies, of its auditor or au- 
ditors, its clerks and subordi- 
nates," etc. 

1069 Additional powers of Board of 

Education : 

1. To establish and conduct 

elementary schools, kinder- 
gartens, manual training 
schools, trade schools, 
truant schools, evening 
schools and vacation 
schools. 

2. To maintain free lectures 

and courses of instruction 
for the people of the city 
of New York. 

3. To provide special classes 

for instruction in English 
to foreigners. 

4. To provide '' one or more 
high schools and training 
schools." 

5. To establish and conduct 

playgrounds in connection 
with the public schools. 

6. To establish new schools 

and discontinue or consoli- 
date any schools. 

7. To make contracts with ap- 

proval of board of esti- 
mate for transportation of 
pupils. 

8. To establish a bureau 
of compulsory education, 
school census and child 
welfare. " On the nomina- 
tion of the board of super- 
intendents the board of 
education shall have power 
to appoint a director and 
an assistant director " and 
other employees, and fix 
their salaries within the 
proper appropriation. 

1070 Secretary to have charge of 

rooms, books, papers, etc., of 
the board and to perform 
" such other duties as may 
be required by its members 
or committees." 

1071 Board of Education empowered 

to establish branch offices of 
the bureaus of school build- 
ings and school supplies in 
the several boroughs, super- 
intendent of school buildings 
to be executive officer of the 
board " in respect to all mat- 
ters relating to the bureau of 
buildings." 



Section State Law Provisions 



S6S-5 Charter sec. 1069 repealed ex- 
cept subdivision 8. Board of 
Education has power to estab- 
lish and maintain such free ele- 
mentary schools, high schools, 
training schools, vocational 
and industrial schools, kinder- 
gartens, technical schools, night 
schools, part-time or continua- 
tion schools, vacation schools, 
schools for adults, open air 
schools, schools for the men- 
tally and physically defective 
children, or such other schools 
or classes as it may deem 

868-6 necessary, and to establish and 
maintain libraries, public lec- 
ture courses, playgrounds, rec- 
reation centers, social centers 
and reading rooms. 



871 -a Bureau of compulsory educa- 
tion, school census and child 
welfare made mandatory, em- 
ployees continued in office dur- 
ing good behavior and remov- 
able only for cause. 



Charter sec. 1070 repealed. 



Charter sec. 1071 repealed. 



25 



Section Charter Provisions 

1073 All plans for new school build- 
ings, additions and structural 
alterations mu^t be approved 
by superintendent of ychool 
buildings, who shall submit 
such plans to Board of Edu- 
cation, whose action shall be 
final. 

lOTi Janitors shall be appointed by 
the Board of Education. 

107-J Board of Jiiducation shall pro- 
vide for purchase of all books, 
supplies, etc., and shall have 
power to enact by-laws and 
resolutions for government of 
superintendent of supplies, 
which by-laws, etc., shall pro- 
vide that all supplies as far 
as possible shall be obtained 
by contract after public let- 
ting in accordance with sec- 
tion 419. 

1076 Bureau under superintendent of 

supplies to be subject to rules 
and regulations of Board of 
Education. Superintendent of 
supplies may appoint such 
deputies and other subordi- 
nates as the by-laws of the 
Board of Education may au- 
thorize. He shall be the ex- 
ecutive officer of the board in 
respect of supplies, printing, 
transportation of pupils and 
such other matters as may be 
assigned him by the board. 

1077 City superintendent shall have 

right of visitation and in- 
quiry in all schools of the city 
and shall report to the board 
thereon. He shall have a seat 
and a right to speak in the 
board meetings, but no vote. 



1078 City superintendent shall visit 
schools and, subject to by- 
laws, prescribe forms and 
regulations for conducting 
school business. Under direc- 
tion of Board of Education 
he shall enforce Compulsory 
Education Law. He may ap- 
point clerks as authorized by 
the Board of Education, and 
assign, su'^pend or discharge 
them subject to appeal to the 
Board of Education. He shall 



Scclioii Slate Law Provisions 
Charter sec. 1073 repealed. 



Charter sec. 1074 repealed. 

868-4 Charter sec. 1075 repealed. 
Board of Education to secure 
necessary books, supplies, etc. 



Charter sec. 1076 repealed. 



870-1 Charter sees. 1077 and 1078 
repealed. Superintendent of 
schools shall have power, sub- 
ject to by-laws, to enforce all 
rules, etc., relating to the man- 
agement of the schools, etc. ; to 
be the chief executive officer 
of the Board of Education and 
the educational system; to 
have a seat and voice but not 
a vote at board meetings; to 

4 have supervision and direction 
of all persons employed by the 
Board of Education; to trans- 
fer teachers on recommenda- 
tion of board of superintend- 
ents; to suspend any cnijiloyee 
until next meeting of Board 

5 of Education ; to have super- 
vision and direction over the 
enforcement of courses of study 
and all the other educational 
activities under control of the 
Board of Education; to issue 



20 



Section Charter rrorisions 

asisigM associate and district 
superintendents subject to by- 
laws. Twenty-three district 
superintendents to be as- 
signed, each one to two local 
school board districts. 

1079 Board of superintendents estab- 
lished, consisting of city su- 
perintendent and eight asso- 
ciate superintendents ap- 
pointed by the Board of Edu- 
cation for six years. Board 
of Education empowered to 
pass by-laws regulating du- 
ties of city superintendent 
and board of superintendents 
There shall be twenty-six dis- 
trict superintendents to be 
appointed by Board of Edu- 
cation for six years on nomi- 
nation of board of superin- 
tendents. Board of Education 
empowered to appoint direct- 
ors of special branches for 
six years on nomination by 
board of superintendents. 

1032 Board of superintendents, sub- 
ject to approval of Board of 
Education, shall establish 
rules governing promotion, 
transfer, etc., of pupils. 

1083 Board of Education shall, upon 
recommendation of board of 
superintendents, approve text 
books, etc. 



1084 Board of Education shall have 
power to change grades and 
adopt and modify courses of 
study, but such changes must 
first be presented to board of 
superintendents and, in case 
of adverse report by latter, 
change shall not be effective 
unless passed by two-thirds 
vote. 

1087 Creation of forty-six local school 
board districts and local 
school boards of five persons 
appointed by borough presi- 
dent, district superintendent 
and Board of Education mem- 
ber. 



Section State Lav: Provisions 

licenses to teachers on recom- 
mendation of board of exam- 

870-6 iners; to have general super- 

871 vision of bureau of compulsory 
education, school census and 
child welfare. 

869 Charter sec. 1079 repealed. Board 
of superintendents continued, 
consisting of superintendent of 
schools and eight associate su- 
perintendents, superintendent 
to be chairman. It has power 

870-2 to jii'epare the content of each 
course of study authorized by 
Board of Education, subject to 
approval by Board of Educa- 

870—4 tion; to recommend text books; 
to recommend to superintend- 
ent the transfer of teachers. 



870-5 Charter sec. 1082 repealed. 
Board of superintendents to 
have power to make rules and 
regulations for promotion and 
graduation of pupils. 

868-8 Charter sec. 1083 repealed. 
Board of Education has power 
to authorize and determine 
text books from lists recom- 
mended by board of superin- 
tendents. 

868-7 Charter sec. 1084 repealed. 
Board of Education has power 
to authorize the general 
courses of study and to ap- 
prove the content of such 
courses before they become 
operative. 



873 Charter sec. 1087 repealed. Local 
school board districts contin- 
ued, but Board of Education 
given power to modify bound- 
aries, consolidate two or more 
and establish new ones. Local 
school boards to consist of five 
persons appointed by the bor- 
ough president, a member of 
the Board of Education desig- 
nated by the board, and a dis- 
trict superintendent assigned 
by the city superintendent. 



27 



Section Charter Provisions 

1088 Duties of local sthool boards: 

1. To visit and inspect schools 

at least once each quarter. 

2. To report on needs for new 

accommodations, recom- 
mend sites, repairs, etc. 

3. To report dereliction of 

duty. 

4. To excuse teachers' ab- 

sences, subject to approval 
of board of superintend- 
ents, for absence with pay, 
and in accordance with by- 
laws. 

5. To try and determine all 

matters regarding discip- 
line and corporal punish- 
ment. 

6. To try charges against a 

t«acher. 

7. To transfer teachers within 

district, after hearing and 
subject to approval of 
board of superintendents. 

1089 Board of examiners created to 

license teachers, consisting 
of city superintendent and 
four persons appointed by 
Board of Education upon 
nomination by city super- 
intendent. 

1090 Principals, branch principals, 

heads of departments, teach- 
ers, assistants and all mem- 
bers of teaching staff shall be 
appointed by Board of Edu- 
cation on nomination of board 
of superintendents, from es- 
tablished eligible lists. 

1091 Board of Education shall have 

power to fix salaries of mem- 
bers of supervising and teach- 
ing staff subject to certain 
minimunis prescribed by the 
statute. 

1093 Board of Education empowered 
to suspend principals, teach- 
ers, etc., with or witnout pay, 
pending trial o' cfiarges pre- 
ferred against them. 

1096 Mayor can remove any member 
of Board of Education or 
local school board for caiises 
specified. 

1098 Board of Education may remove 
any school officer interested 
in furnishing supplies, etc. 



Section State Law Provisions 
873-4 Charter sec. 1088 repealed. 

Powers and duties of local 

school boards : 

1. To visit schools at least 
once in each quarter. 

2. To make recommendations 
to Board of Education. 

3. Subject to by-laws of 
Board of Education, to 
transfer teachers, excuse 
absences of teachers, and 
hear charges against prin- 
cipals or teachers. 



871 Charter sec. 1089 repealed. Board 
of examiners to consist of 
seven members to hold exami- 
nations and promulgate eli- 
gible lists, and perform the du- 
ties required by Board of Edu- 
cation. 

Charter sec. 1090 repealed. 



See sec. 872 summarized above. 



882 Board of Education shall adopt 
by-laws fixing salaries of mem- 
bers of teaching and supervis- 
ing staff, but they shall not be 
less than the rates prescribed 
by the State. 

Charter sec. 1093 repealed. 



Charter sec. 1096 not repealed. 



Charter sec. 1098 not repealed. 



28 



Section Charter Provisions 

1099 Contributions by members of 

teaching or supervising force 
to fimds to ailect legislation 
increasing their emoluments, 
prohibited. 

1100 Board of Education may inves- 

tigate any subject over which 
it has legal control or of 
which it has cognizance, in- 
cluding conduct of employees. 

1101 Continuance in office of all em 

ployees under public school 
system. 

1102 State school moneys payable to 

city and credited to general 
fund for reduction of taxa- 
tion. 



Section State Laic Provisions 

Charter see. 1099 not repealed. 



Charter sec. 1100 not repealed. 



Charter sec. 1101 not repealed. 



Charter sec. 1102 not specifically 
repealed. 
880 State school moneys to be cred- 
ited to the Board of Education 
as well as all funds raised by 
the city for any purpose au- 
thorized by the educational 
chapter. 

877-10 Board of Education shall not 
incur a liability chargeable 
against its funds or the city 
in excess of the amount avail- 
able therefor, or otherwise au- 
thorized by law. 

879-4 Board of Estimate authorized 
to raise in its discretion money 
for new schools, sites, etc. 

880-3 Board of Education to make 
such classification of accounts 
as the comptroller of the city 
shall require. 



From the above coinparative summary the following outstanding 
features of the new law are apparent, viz. : 

1. Reduction in size in Board of Education from forty-six to 

seven members. 

2. Possibility of conflict between the Board of Education and 

the Supeiintendent of Schools relative to their respec- 
tive powers. 

3. Possibility of conflict between the Board of Education and 

the municipal authorities relative to their respective 
powers. 

4. Failure to concentrate in clear and unmistakable language 

full responsibility for the proper administration of the 
public school system either on the municipal authorities, 
the Board of Education or the State of ISTew York. 



29 

5. Limitation of the powers of the Board of Education, 

6. Great increase in the powers of the Superintendent of 

Schools. 

7. Perpetuation of the Board of Superintendents. 

8. Perpetuation of the Bureau of Compulsory Education, 

School Census and Child Welfare. 

9. Conflict between section 1102 of the charter, which was not 

specifically repealed, and the State Education Law rela- 
tive to the disposition to be made of the city's share of 
the State school moneys ; the former providing that such 
money be credited to the city's general fund for the 
reduction of taxation, and the latter that it be credited 
to the Board of Education. 

10. Increase from three mills to four and nine-tenths mills in 

the amount which the City is required amiually to 
appropriate for the use of the Board of Education. 

11. The inclusion within the State's educational system of city 

beards of education, including the Board of Education 
of the City of jSTew York and the subordination of the 
municipal authorities to the State in matters of school 
administration. 

The new law effectin.o; these changes in the status of the local 
educational system has been in force for almost four years and 
its adequacy and effectiveness should be easily determinable from 
the history of the public schools during that period. A consider- 
able amount of data bearing on this subject has been collected and 
the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of 
Schools and the Superintendent of School Buildings have been 
examined at public hearings. The following discussion of the 
degree of success with which the State Education Law hns been 
administered is based upon a combination of sworn testimony and 
independent examination of the school records. 

1. Reduction in size of tlie Board of Education from J/G to 7 
memhers. 

One of the most popular features of the new law at the time 
it was before the Legislature for enactment was that it reduced 
the size of the Board of Education in 'New York City from the 
unwieldy number of 46 to the small compact numl>er of 7. But 
the experiences of the past four years have shown that good school 



30 

management depends on more than the size of the board. A 
board of 7 must be composed of exceptionally conscientious and 
capable persons if it is to discharge satisfactorily its many 
responsibilities, and it must be composed of recognized authori- 
ties in the field of education and business if it is to command 
public respect. The appointments made to the new board of 7 
do not seem to have been made with due regard to these considera- 
tions. It is doubtful if the names of the present members are 
known to more than a small proportion of the city's population, 
and if the names are known, it is exceedingly doubtful if the 
qualifications of these members are known. The President of 
the Board of Education admitted on the witness stand that prior 
to his appointment to the Board he had not been specially inter- 
ested in educational matters or administration (Vol. Ill, p. 1205). 
In response to further inquiries he stated that he was in the real 
estate business, although at the present time he was not actually 
engaged in any business. As to his personal educational qualifica- 
tions, he stated (Vol. Ill, p. 1205) that he was a commcn school 
and high school graduate, but had not attended college. 

In January, 1922, the President of the Board of Education 
resigned his office and accepted a political appointment to a 
$7,000 job as Commissioner of Taxes and iVssessments. The 
person appointed by the Mayor to fill the vacancy occasioned by 
the President's resignation has, according to the City's civil list, 
been a paid employee of the City of ISTew York, from 1914: to 
the end of 1921, his last position being that of Commissioner 
of Public Works, at a salary of $5,500, under a Borough President 
whose term of office expired December 31, 1921. 

One of the most important committees of the Board of Educa- 
tion is the committee on buildings and sites. The chairman of 
that committee is the personal physician of the Mayor's family. 
Without wishing to reflect in any way upon the probity of the 
individuals in question, or upon other members of the present 
Board of Education, the committee believes that the persons 
appointed during the last four years do not all possess the highest 
qualifications for membership on this important body. 

The newest appointee is almost totally unknown outside of 
his own borough. Even in his own borough lie is not conspicuous 
for his knowledge of and interest in educational problems. 

The law establishes qualifications for the office of Superin- 
tendent of Schools and other members of the professional staff. 



31 

but members of the Board of Education who are to determine the 
educational policies to be carried out by these professional school- 
men may be selected with regard only to the borough of their 
residence. With no other check upon the appointing power, it 
is not surprising that political considerations should carry great 
weight. Politics should be kept out of the public schools and 
some statutory safeguard should be erected to insure the selec- 
tion of persons qualified for other than political reasons for 
membership in the Board of Education. This can be done by 
requiring appointments to the Board of Education to be made 
by some non-political agency; that the desirability for some such 
provision is more than theoretical is adequately established by the 
evidence below. 

The best test of the qualifications and competency of the present 
Board of Education is afforded by its record of the past four years, 
a brief account of which will now be submitted. 

a. Inadequate School Accommodations. 

In December, 1917, the month before the present Board of 
Education took office, there were 746,114 children registered in 
the day elementary schools, of whom 34,153 were on part time and 
76,214 on the so-called duplicate form of organization. In 
October, 1921, the last month for which figures are now available 
(December, 1921) there were 817,210 children on register in the 
day elementary schools, of whom 81,242 were on part time and 
194,234 on double session. 

In the daj high schools there w^ere 58,063 registered in Decem- 
ber, 1917, none of whom were on double session and only 1,796 
were on part time In October, 1921, the register had increased to 
82,265 and there were 1,516 children on double session and 
33,892 on part time. 

These figures demonstrate conclusively that the Board of Edu- 
cation has not provided sufficient additional school accommoda- 
tions to care for the growth of school population. It is a serious 
reflection upon ISTew York City that 115,134 children should be 
deprived of a full day's schooling and that 195,750 children 
should be subjected to the disadvantage of the double session 
expedient to which the city has resorted. Such a condition is 
intolerable and the fault lies with the Board of Education, the 
city authorities, or the provisions of law under which they operate. 
If the trouble is with the law, it is the dutv of the Board of Edu- 



y2 

cation to seek such amendments as will obviate the difficulty. 
Unless the Board has actively concerned itself with desirable 
modifications of the statute, however, it cannot be free from 
blame fcr the failure to provide the necessary accommodations. 

The conspicuous failure to provide sufficient accommodations for 
elementary school pupils is demonstrated by the foregoing fic:iires. 
Confirmation is afforded by the compilation of statistics showing 
the capacity of new elementary school buildings and additions 
opened during the past four years. The records show the follow- 
ing: 

No. of New Buildings or No. of Sittings 

Year Additions Opened Therein 

1918 2 1,294 

1919 4 1,380 

1920 None None 

1921 to Dec. 6. 16* 19,203 

Total...". 22 21,877 



* Of the 16 opened in 1921, all but two were opened after September 1st. 

During the preceding four years, 44 new elementary buildings 
or additions were opened, with 52,847 sittings, so that the record 
of the present Board of Education is unsatisfactory, both as com- 
pared with requirements and as compared with the accomplish- 
ments of its predecessor. 

Various reasons have been given by city and school officials to 
explain the delay in school construction, the war being the one 
most frequently mentioned. The record, however, does not indi- 
cate that the war played more than an incidental part in this 
matter. At the time the small Board of Education took office, it 
found a building program prepared by its predecessor, calling 
for the erection of certain specified buildings, and plans were 
practically completed for several typical schools. In addition 
there were authorizations aggregating about $10,000,000 from 
which the cost of construction could be defrayed. The new 
Board, however, did not make use of this program or of the 
funds. On May 10, 1918, the President of the Board reported that 
" this Board undertook to set aside all previous plans and begin 
de novo," and on December 30, 1918, the Board of Estimate 
rescinded the authorizations made by the previous administration 
frvr new school construction. The first bids called for by the new 
Board were for P. S. No. 29, Brooklyn. They were opened July 
10, 1918. The contract was let but was later rescinded at the 



33 

request of the War Industries Board. It would appear, there- 
fore, that the only delay in school constiniction actually attribut- 
able to the war and the rules of the War Industries Board was the 
four month period from July when the first contract was awarded, 
and INrovember, when the armistice was signed. On November 
13, 1918, the Superintendent of School Buildings reported that 
plans and specifications for fourteen new buildings and additions 
were ready for the estimating table, but the first construction 
contract was not let until March 24, 1919. During 1919 fourteen 
construction contracts were let and all fourteen covered buildings 
on the program of the previous administration for which the 
funds had been authorized by the previous administration. It 
took the new Board of Education more than fourteen months to go 
ahead with the identical schools selected by its predecessor. 

It is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation of the delays in 
school construction. The passive role played by the Board of 
Education was one factor. It received pressure and criticism 
from the Mayor and from the city authorities and it encountered 
obstacles in its own organization and procedure, but instead of 
responding actively to the pressure or striving vigorously to over- 
come the obstacles it apparently more or less acquiesced in condi- 
tions as it found them. The following quotations from letters of 
the IMayor and from the testimony of the President of the Board 
of Education are illustrative of this point. 

On August 8. 1918, the Mayor wrote to a member of the Board 
of Education in part as follows: 

" Six months of our administration have passed by and 
very little has been done toward the construction of schools. 
If Mr. Snyder cannot build more than one or two schools at 
a time, would it not be a good idea to replace him with a man 
who could have five or six schools in the course of constnic- 
tion at the same time ? 

" If the Board of Education will first fig-ure out how 
many schools can be constructed with the money now avail- 
able and after conferring with the Presidents of the various 
boroughs will then reconunend where the schools are inuue- 
diately required, I will then submit your plan to the mem- 
l;crs of the committee on finance and budget, so that action 
can be at once taken and at least seven or eight new schools 
be started without any further delay. . . . You have a 
standard type of ?chool. You have some school sites where 



34 

schools are necessary. If you have not enough, let us pro- 
ceed to secure a sufficient number of sites in accordance with 
the money we have on hand and start the schools at once." 

This letter was read into the testimony and the President of 
the Board was then questioned as follows (Vol. Ill, p. 1264) : 

" Q. Now, at the time you received that letter, the 
$10,000,000 authorization was in force? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. Remained in force until the 30th of the following 
December ? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. But that letter did not result in any action along the 
line of new school buildings under that authorization? A. 
Well, no; not under that particular authorization, no. 

" Q. Well, or any other authorization until after Decem- 
ber 30th ? A. I can't recall whether it was prior to that date 
that the Board submitted its program for 27 new elementary 
schools. 

" Q. You said in May that you had made a complete new 
program and wiped out the old program? A. Yes. But I 
think perhaps that program had been sent in — I am not 
certain — I think it had been sent in before the receipt of 
this letter." 

On October 17. 1918, the Mayor wrote again, in part, as follows 
(Vol. Ill, p. 1266) : 

" The question of a sufficient number of new school build- 
ings in this city to properly house the school children is giv- 
ing me great concern. . . . We have some ten millions 
of dollars available for building schools. I would like to 
have that money employed for that purpose and I would like 
to begin making preparations for the construction of these 
schools at once. Mr. Bernard Baruch, representing the Gov- 
ernment of the IJTiited States, has declared that we cannot 
at this time have the material necessary for the construction 
of a certain type of school building . . . . if we cannot 
build one type of school building we can build another 
equally good type of school building. If we cannot use steel 
construction we can use reinforced concrete construction." 

The examination of the President of the Board then prcceedcd 
as follows (Vol. Ill, p. 1268^ : 



35 

" Q. Now, the Mayor wrote on October 18th that very 
urgent letter to you, hoping you would use that $10,000,000, 
and I do not understand how, in view of a letter of that kind 
from the Mayoi-, you did not begin to operate on the ten 
million dollars. A. Well, I can't very well answer that, 
Senator, for this reason : First, I was not the President of 
the Board at that time and I was not on the Building Com- 
mittee at any time, never on the Sites and Buildings. 

" Q. You seem to be a good man to write letters to. A. 
But we were at that time under that ban, and I do not know 
whether or not at that time the Board understood just what 
this ten million dollars meant, whether it was tied up spe- 
cifically on certain sites or buildings, I really couldn't say. 
* * * * * 

" Q. I can't make out, in view of this correspondence, how 
it was that the 1918 program, the 1918-1919 program of the 
Board of Education was delayed the way it was. I am 
unable to find out. A. Well, it made a contract, as I under- 
stand in the beginning, we advertised for several contracts; 
we made one when the ban was put on. That ban was not 
removed until November, until after the Armistice was 
signed. 

" Q. The 11th of November? A. Until after the Armis- 
tice. Now this letter came in October, and the other letter 
in July. 

" Q. Yes; from August to November, there was a hiatus 
there. A. Well, we were helpless at that time. 

" Q. What ? A. We were absolutely helpless, as far as 
making contracts was concerned. 

" Q. About three months ? A. Oh, no ; it is more than 
that, from July until practically the end of the year. 

" Q. That would be four months " 

The foregoing quotations show the flayer's impatience at the 
failure of the Board of Education to accomplish more and demon- 
strate how imperfectly the President of the Board of Education 
could explain the Board's failure. Every menibor of a small 
board should be familiar with such vital matters as insulficiont 
school accommodations and every member should charge himself 
with the duty of facilitating a building program that is so sorely 
needed, and with the responsibility of eliminating obstacles to the 
completion of such programs. That there are many obstacles in 
the existing practice is shown below: 



36 



Superintendent of Scliools 
Associate Superintendent Shallow 

Board of Superintendents 
Board of Education 



Board of Estimate and Apportion- 
ment 



Associate Superintendent Shallow 
Board of Superintendents 
Board of Education 
Superintendent of School Buildings 

Municipal Art Commission 
Bureau of Buildings 



Department of Water Supply, Gas 
and Electricity 



directs preparation of building pro- 
gram by 

who studies city's needs, reports on 
order of urgency and, with assistance 
of superintendent of school buildings, 
estimates cost of program, which he 
recommends to the 

which considers, and then makes spe- 
cific recommendations to the 

which considers program through its 
committee of the whole or committee 
on buildings and sites, and then acts 
on such committee's recommenda- 
tions, sending its recommendations to 
the 



which has recommendations examined 
by its committee on finance and 
budget and its engineers and acts 
upon their report, then notifying the 
Board of Education of its action. 

reports on layout of individual build- 
ings in approved program to 

which acts thereon and sends its rec- 
ommendations to 



and takes appro- 



which considers 
priate action 

as soon as site is acquired, and sur- 
vey received, selects type best suited 
to neighborhood and causes detailed 
plans to be prepared, submitting pre- 
liminary and final drawings to 

which must approve design before 
buildings can l)e erected ; when this 
approval is given the general con- 
struction plans and specifications are 
submitted by the Superintendent of 
School Buildings to 

of appropriate borough for examina- 
tion and approval, while the plans 
and specifications for heating and 
ventilating (prepared by bureau of 
plant operation) and for plumbing, 
gasfitting and electrical work are sub- 
mitted to the 

for examination and approval. These 
plans and specifications, together 
with those for furniture and all other 
equipment, are also transmitted to 
the 



Board of Education 



which, after approvint 
wards them to the 



them, for- 



37 



Board of Estimate and Apportion- 
ment 



Board of Education 

Superintendent of School Buildings 
Corporation Counsel 
Superintendent of School Buildings 

Board of Education 



Board of Education 
Comptroller 

Board of Education 

Comptroller 

Board of Education 



Superintendent of School Buildings 
Deputy Superintendent 
Contractor 

Final payment cannot be made to the 
Commission issues a certificate that 
approved plans. 



whicli, through its committee on 
finance and budget and its engineers, 
examines the plans and specifications 
for general construction, sanitary 
work, heating and ventilation, and 
electrical work, together with those 
for furniture and all other equipment, 
acts thereon and notifies the 

of its action, and when this action is 
favorable the Board of Education 
informs the 

who then submits proposed advertise- 
ment and contract to the 

for approval, and when this approval 
is obtained the 

advertises for bids in the City Rec- 
ord for ten days, then opens bids and 
reports thereon to 

which may award the contract, if the 
bid is within the authorized amount. 
If not within the estimate, the Board 
of Estimate and Apportionment must 
approve the increase before the con- 
tract can be awarded. After the 
award the 

notifies the 

who examines and passes on the sure- 
ties and returns bonds to 

which then signs contract, lias it re- 
corded by its auditor and returns it 
to the 

who gives final approval as to finan- 
cial ability and then advises 

which notifies the 

who notifies appropriate 

who directs 

to start work. 

contractors until the Municipal Art 
the building is in accordance with 



An examination of the periods of time actually consumed by 
the various agencies cooperating in the construction of schools 
also disclosed some most significant facts. A brief life his- 
tory was composed for each of the schools on the Board 
of Education's building program. In two instances it was 
found that twenty years or more had elapsed from the time the 
recommendation for a new building was made by a local school 
board and the time when the building was opened for use. P. S. 



38 

No. 54, Brookljai, for example, was recommended by the school 
board of Brooklyn in 1901 ; the contract date for its completion is 
September, 1922. 

There is also delay due to the requirement that plans and 
specifications be submitted to the Board of Estimate for approval. 
The examination of the record of some twenty schools on the 
current building program shows that plans and specifications 
were before the Board of Estimate in one instance for 356 day.s, 
another for 211 days, and in eight cases for more than 50 days. 
This did not take into account the time between the return by the 
Board of Estimate and a resubmission by the Board of Educa- 
tion. In one case the same matter was four times before the 
Board of Estimate. In four other cases the same matter was 
before the Board of Estimate three times. 

A further index of the actual accomplishments of the Board of 
Education in providing additional school facilities is afforded ])y 
the following table of authorizations and expenditures for such 
purposes, annually from 1910. 

Statement Showing the Corpoeate Stock Authorizations 
AND Cash Expenditures from January 1, 1910, to June 

30, 1921 Cash Expenditures 

Year Authorizations (Sites and Buildings) 

1910 $5,270,173 26 $2,632,110 72 

1911 12,138,387 39 4,388,647 65 

1912 360,490 00 4,851,716 26 

1913 6,131,085 00 4,726,394 67 

Total $23,900,135 65 $16,598,869 30 

1914 $798,194 89 $5,386,927 68 

1915 1,505,500 00 4,138,094 66 

1916 6,172,084 68 2,567,537 06 

1917 6,797,571 13 2,177,079 21 

Total 15,273,350 70 14,269,638 61 

1918 *$678,754 24 $2,233,113 32 

1919 7,000,000 00 2,648,070 46 

1920 8,000,000 00 5,562,616 73 

1921 15,250,000 00 4,780,531 46 

Total 29,571,245 76 15,224,33197 



Grand Total $68,744,732 11 $46,092,839 88 



* Net rescindment. 



It will be noted that the expenditures of the three and a half 
years, 1918 to July, 1921, were but $15,224,331.97 which, in view 
of the depreciated value of the dollar during all this period rep- 



resents not more than $8,000,000 in building- value on the basis of 
1910 to 1917, or about one-half of the previous four-year totals. 
The average annual authorization for the eleven and a half 
years covered in the above table was $5,977,802.79 and the 
average annual expenditure $4,008,073.03, or about $0,000,000 
and $4,000,000, respectively. 

h. Fire Hazards in the Schools. 

It is the duty of the Bureau of Fire Prevention of the Fire 
Department and the Bureaus of Buildings in the live boroughs to 
inspect school buildings to determine whether the requirements of 
law respecting exits and the elimination of fire hazards are being 
complied with. In the event that violations are discovered, it is 
the duty of these bureaus to serve notice thereof on the Board of 
Education. 

An examination was made of the records of the Board of 
Education with respect to such violations. It was found 
that at the time of this examination, August, 1921, there 
were 7,353 violations of fire prevention rules recorded against 
496 of the city's 695 school buildings. The Committee's engineer 
esitimated the cost of removing these violations at about $4,500,- 
000. Some of the violations are less serious than others, but, on 
the other hand, some are of the very greatest moment, as, for 
example, stairways that are not enclosed with fire and smoke 
proof partitions and not provided with self-closing doors ; interior 
fire alarm systems that do not work; wooden and not self-closing 
fireproof doors along the line of exit stairways; no hand fire 
extinguishers; and storage of dangerously inflammable materials 
in non-fireproof rooms or compartments. 

The seriousness of this situation is emphasized by the words 
of the Superintendent of School Buildings, quoted in the minutes 
of the Board of Education for March 23, 1921, as follows: 

" This with the continued growth of the schools and conse- 
quent overcrowding and congestion, causes me great un- 
easiness and distress of mind. If the fire prevention work 
was and is required for schools under noniial conditions, 
how much more important must it be when a building con- 
tains quite one-half or more in excess of the nomial . . . 
why paint and renovate the interior of a building when 
there are essential items of fire prevention work to be per- 
formed which would actually operate to safeguard life and 
lessen fire risk." 



40 

Eut in spite of the importance of this work and of the fact that 
many of these violations date back several years, only $250,000 
was made available for the removal of fire violations during the 
past four years, and that appropriation was not made until April, 
1921. The following table shows how the schools have been 
neglected in this respect as compared with the years preceding 
this administration and while it should be stated that the Board 
of Education has made repeated requests since 1918 for fire pre- 
vention funds, these requests have not been effective. 

Authorizations and Expenditures for Fire Prevention 
Work as of August 10, 1921 

Date of Amount of 

Authorization Authorization Expenditures Balance 

Sept. 16, 1904 $300. 000 00 $300 , 000 00 

550 ,000 00 550,000 00 

April 3,1908 1,000,000 00 1,000,000 00 

June 3,1910 450,000 00 450,000 00 

July 17,1911 450,000 00 447,666 59 $2,333 41 

Nov. 19,1915 250,000 00 250,000 00 

July 7,1916 250,000 00 250,000 00 

April 20,1917 250,000 00 240,660 85 9,339 15 

April 22,1921 250,000 00 250,000 00 



On Seplf-mber 14th the Committee examined the Superintend- 
ent of School Buildings on this subject. Significant portions of 
the testimony are given below (Vol. Ill, p. 1364ff) : 

"Q. Well, this question of doing away with violations of 
the fire prevention rules has been a matter of a good deal of 
concern to you for several years, hasn't it ? A. It has. 

"Q. And you have made efforts to secure moneys for the 
purpose of correcting the conditions ? A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. You have reported it frequently to the Board of Edu- 
cation ? A. I have. 

"Q. And seen that it was presented to the Board of Esti- 
mate and Apportionment ? A. That would not be for me 
to do. 

"Q. That would not be your function ? A. ISTo, sir. 

"Q. I see in your letter of Mar. 18, 1921, that you say: 
'The condition in relation to fire prevention with the con- 
tinued gi'owth of schools and consequent overcrowding and 
congestion, causes me great uneasiness and distress of mind.' 
Is that true ? A. It was. 



41 

"Q. ^If the fire prevention work was and is required for 
schools under normal conditions, how much more important 
must it be when buildings contain quite one-half or more in 
excess of the normal V A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. 'I sincerely hope that a resumption of the carrying 
out of this most important work may be brought about with- 
out the stimulus represented perhaps by some awful acci- 
dent, either here or elsewhere.' You said that, didn't you ? 
A. That is in the letter, yes. 

"Q. You adhere to it? A. I do. 

" Q. And I notice you say, ' These orders (that is, the fire 
prevention rules) have been and are now available at a mo- 
ment's notice. If there be no intention of granting funds 
for fire prevention work, then we should know it and make a 
study of the situation, looking to a decision as to whether 
or not all moneys for certain repairs should be used for this 
work.' Was any such decision made to divert moneys for 
repairs generally to this work? A. What was the date of 
that letter, please ? 

"Q. March, 1921 ? A. I^o. 

"Q. You need the money for other repairs that you get? 
A. We do. 

"Q. And you use it for other repairs ? A. We do. 

''Q. I notice you say, 'Why paint and renovate the interior 
of a building, when there are essential items of fire preven- 
tion work to be performed, which would naturally operate 
to safeguard life and lessen fire risk.' A. That is a question 
of judgment. 

"Q. 'The situation becomes more serious with each day's 
delay,' and then comes an appeal to the Board of Education 
to apply to the Board of Estimate. I will read it : 'I would 
earnestly recommend that the Board of Education adopt 
resolutions for transmission to the Board of Estimate and Ap- 
portionment, stating the stern necessity of prompt action 
upon the Board's request for funds to enable the department 
to undertake immediately fire prevention work that is ab- 
solutely necessary if we are to safeguard properly the lives 
of the children entrusted to our care.' That is your letter? 
A. I believe it is, yes, sir. 

"Q. And T notice elseAvhere that you state that if the cor- 
rection of the violations was compelled, it would result in 
the shutting down cf a lot of schools ? A. Pardon me. I do 



42 

not thiuk that that is quite the meaning of that paragraph 
as I recall it. I have not seen it in some time. 

"Q. Well, I was trying to be brief. Sometimes I am brief 
at the expense of accuracy. A. I meant this, that the fire 
department have the right to close up any premises which it 
considers unsafe, and we might possibly be confronted — 
someone might reach such a decision, and we would be con- 
fronted with such a decision. 

*' Q. Here it says, ' In the event, however, of the Fire 
Department enforcing through legal proceeding the carry- 
ing out of the orders now outstanding on our buildings, 
there would be no alternative, it would seem, except to close 
such structures for the time being, either in whole or in 
part, until funds had become available and the orders 
executed.' A. That is what I had reference to. 

" Q. That is an accurate statement, is it ? A. That is what 
I had reference to. The Fire Department could do that. 

"Q. I meant to state it in substance in that form ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Senator Downing: Did the Fire Department close any 
school buildings ? 

The Witness : No, sir. 

" Q. Here you say, ' For instance, in Public School 117, 
Brooklyn, which was not originally intended for a school 
building, we have been obliged, much against the wishes of 
the District and Division Superintendents, to prohibit the 
use of the upper floor, owing to the absence of enclosed fire- 
proof stairway and other items, the cost of which was esti- 
mated about two years ago to be about $34,000, and no funds 
being available for the work.' .... 

In reply to a question as to how much money would be required 
to correct outstanding fire violations, Superintendent Snyder 
stated (Vol. Ill, p. 1368): "Around four millions of dollars." 
The following quotation from the testimony gives Superintend- 
ent Snyder's recommendation for the prevention of such an accu- 
mulation of uncorrected violations. (Vol. Ill, p. 1381). 

"Q. ISTow what is the matter with the system ? A. Why, 
the system was that there has never been a policy — the Board 
of Education was never in a position to fix a policy and go 
ahead and do the work systematically and know what it could 
do this vear and next voar and the vcar after that. 



4a 

" Q. Because they didn't have the money ( A. They didn't 
have the right to fix a policy. 

"Q. To have the money? A. I wouldn't put it that \vay. 
They didn't have the right to fix a policy and the ability to 
carry it out when once fixed. 

"Q. Where would you vest that powder, where should it be 
vested so as to insure it being carried out ? A. I think all 
these things resolve themselves simply down to this, that 
the Board of Education either should be absolutely independ- 
ent and handle its own affairs and be able to fix its policy, or 
should know that it is not independent and must bow to the 
city departments or something of the kind. It is either one 
thing or the other, and everything can be traced to that one 
thing. 

"Q. Would you regard the system under which this large 
accumulation of fire violations occurs, is wrong, needs cor- 
rection ? A. I believe it does ; yes, sir. 

" Q. By statute, by law ? A. Whatever is necessary to 
bring it about. You know better than I do. 

"Q. By law? A. Some way that it should be done. 

" Q. And there should be some power in connection with 
the Board of Education which will enable it to meet these 
violations of the fire prevention rules as they come up ? A. 
Yes, sir ; and anything else that comes up. 

" Q. Well, particularly these? A. Yes, sir." 

c. Failure to Bepair Fire Damage to Board of Education 
Building 
In February, 1918, the seventh, eighth and ninth floors of the 
Hall of the Board of Education, at 500 Park Avenue, housing the 
executive offices of the Board, were completely burned out. Bids 
for the rebuilding of these floors were not, however, opened until 
December 7, 1921, nearly four years after the fire. During this 
interval the work of the Board has been seriously interfered with 
because of compulsory vacancy of the three top floors of its build- 
ing. The Bureau of School Buildings, for example, had to be 
moved to inadequate quarters in the jMunicipal Building, several 
miles away from the other offices of the Board. The delay in 
agreeing on new plans, in securing an appropriation and in letting 
the contract lays the Board of Education open to the most serious 
criticism, ^o business corporation would tolerate such slovenly 
and inefficient methods. 



44 

The following extract from the testimony of the President of 
the Board of Education on this subject is illuminating (Vol. Ill, 
p. 1325) : 

" Q. Was there a fire in the Board of Education Build- 
ing? A. * * * Yes, in our building. 

" Q. In your- building? A. In Febraary, I think, 1918. 

" Q. What did that do? A. A¥ell, it destroyed, I think, 
the three upper floors of the building. 

" Q. How many floors have you got ? A. It is a 9-story 
building. 

" Q. Did you need that room ? A. Yes, we needed it badly. 

" Q. You have needed it badly during all that time ? A. 
Yes. 

" Q. But it has not been restored ? A. 'No, it has not. 

" Q. Only a temporary roof put on it ? A. That is all. 

" Q. Is anything being done now to correct it ? A. Yes. 
The Department is working on plans. The Building Bureau 
is working on plans. 

" Q. That is, the Building Bureau of the Board of Educa- 
tion ? A. Of the Board of Education. 

" Q. Haven't they worked on plans before ? A. Plans 
have been prepared, yes. 

'^ Q. They must have had the plans in the same year it 
burned, didn't they ? A. No, we had no appropriation that 
year. 

" Q. You have to get plans before you get an appropria- 
tion, don't you? A. Yes, but I think we prepared plans 
but failed to secure an appropriation. 

"■ Q. That is, you prepared the plans in 1918 ? A. I am 
not sure. I think in 1918, yes. 

" Q. Right after the fire ? A. And thereafter, I think the 
plans were changed. They were to change the stairways and 
make some other changes in the building. 

" Q. When were they changed ? A. Well, that I can not 
tell you. The details as to that the Building Superintendent 
has. 

" Q. Who recommended the changes, the same Bureau ? 
A. I thinlc the members of the Board requested changes, and 
I think perhaps the Superintendent of Schools. 

" Q. Well, now, this plan for the repair of this building 
was submitted to the Board of Estimate when, first ? A. I 
can't tell you, Senator. 



45 

" Q. 1918? A. I couldn't say; I would have to get the 
facts on that; I couldn't remember the dates. 

" Q. It has been pending a long time ? A. They were 
pending a long time, yes. 

" Q. November 27, 1918, my records show? A. They 
were subsequently changed, 

" Q. And presented again June 25, 1919, the record 
shows, and then again in July and then again March, 1920, 
and then in May, 1920, so you have made abundant applica- 
tion to the Board of Estimate ? A. I have followed that up 
pretty closely myself personally. We were anxious to get in 
the building to have the building repaired and we were over- 
crowded, and as I say, we were very anxious to get in there. 

" Q. You have needed the room all the time, it was occu- 
pied before the fire, wasn't it? A. It was necessary to have 
some of our departments housed outside of the building, be- 
cause of lack of space there, due to the fire. 

" Q. I say, it was occupied when the fire occurred ? A. 
It was. 

" Q. You have needed it ever since ? A. We have. 

" Q. You have had to hire some rooms outside ? A. We 
have. 

" Q. To what extent ? A. Well, we are not hiring any 
rooms outside but we are occupying city owned property. 

" Q. City property ? A. Yes." 

J. Incomplete By-Laivs and Delayed Minutes 

Matters of less public importance but of almost equal signifi- 
cance as indicating the degree of efficiency with which the Board 
of Education has administered the new Education Law are those 
relating to the revision of the Board's by-laws and the prepara- 
tion of its minutes. The new law of 1917 so changed the 
organization and scheme of the school system that a complete re- 
vision of the by-laws was necessary in order to make them con- 
form with the new statute. This complete revision had not, 
however, been made up to September 12, 1921, when the Presi- 
dent of the Board of Education was examined on this point by 
the Committee. A few sections had been adopted in new form, 
but the great bulk of the by-laws was still in the form of a vol- 
ume published in 1914 with literally hundreds of amendment 
slips pasted to the appropriate pages, many of which antedate 



46 

the law of 1917 and in tlie form of special documents containing 
salary schedules as enacted by the Legislature. 

A Board which can permit a delay of nearly four years in the 
preparation and adoption of by-laws to govern the administration 
of the public school system of which it is the head, cannot escape 
criticism on the ground of incapacity or lack of interest in the 
great responsibility with which it is charged. 

The Board has also tolerated during its term of office a condi- 
tion which no business house would peraiit to exist for a moment. 
The minutes of Board meetings are records of the greatest import- 
ance to teachers, board members, board officers and city authori- 
ties as they are the official documents setting forth the Board's 
determinations and decisions. The last volume of minutes, how- 
ever, to be furnished with a printed index is that for 1915. The 
index for 1916 is said to be completed, but it has not yet gone to 
the printer. A delay of five years in indexing current minutes is 
inexcusable. Another instance of the dilatoriness permitted by 
the Board is the fact that it takes the secretaiy's office about two 
months to issue printed minutes of Board meetings. The Com- 
mittee has been on the mailing list for these minutes and on the 
day that this statement is written (December 7, 1921) the last 
meeting for which minutes have been received is that of Septem- 
ber 28, 1921, and those minutes came only a few days ago. There 
has been a constant lag of about two months between board 
meeting and receipt of minutes ever since the Committee started 
inquiry in this direction. 

It is generally agreed that a small Board of Education can be 
more efficient than a large board, and that the abolition of the 
former board of 46 members was most desirable. It seems quite 
certain, however, that a Board of Education of seven members is 
too small for the City of New York. Boards of Education in 
other cities of the state number from three to nine members ; 
about twenty cities having boards of nine ; about twenty-five cities 
having boards of from five to seven, and the others having boards 
of from three to five. It is not logical that New York, the largest 
city of the state, should have a Board of Education smaller than 
the Board of Education in twenty other cities with far less inhab- 
itants. The New York Board of Education should be large enough 
to handle its problems efi"ectively and yet not so large as to be 
unwieldy, and its term of office should be uniform with the terms 
of office of Boards of Education in the other cities of the state. 



47 

It seems equally certain that the statutes should impose 
some means for guaranteeing the quality of the local appoint- 
ments to the Board of Education. Appointment should be made 
on the basis of qualification for the duties to be performed. iVn 
appointing officer with unrestricted power to appoint is subject 
to a degree of external political pressure to which it is difficult 
not to respond, and political considerations should play no part 
in the selection of members of a Board of Education. 

From the foregoing account of the division of responsibility 
between city and educational authorities under the present stat- 
ute, it is also clear that the only remedy lies in so amending the 
law as to centralize power in a single agency. If the Board of 
Education is to be responsible for the proper conduct of the 
schools, it should have the power to cany out its program without 
hindrance. 

2. Possibilities of conflict hetiveen the Board of Education and 
the Superintendent of Schools, relative to their respective powers. 

Under the Greater ISFew York Charter, the Board of Education 
had specific power to enact by-laws " defining the duties of the 
city siiperintendent of schools." The Education Law of 1917 re- 
pealed this section of the charter (Section 1068) and did not 
enact an equivalent. 

In addition to this negative act, it specifically constituted the 
Superintendent of Schools, " the chief executive officer of such 
board" (of education), and gave him power subject to the by- 
laws, " to enforce all provisions of law and all rules and regu- 
lations relating to the management of the schools." He was also 
given specific jurisdiction over the employees of the Board of 
Education. 

The material for a serious controversy between the Board and 
its Superintendent was thus at hand and controversy developed. 
The new Board of Education adopted new by-laws, defining the 
powers of its Pi'esident, of the Board and of its subordinates. 
The Superintendent of Schools felt that his prerogatives under 
the statute had been invaded by these by-laws and appealed to the 
State Commissioner of Education for relief. The Commissioner 
upheld him and directed the Board to amend its by-laws so as to 
eliminate the objectionable provisions. The significance of the 
decision bv the Commissioner is indicated by the alterations that 



48 



were made by the Board pursuant to his injunction, some of which 
are quoted below. 



First Version 
Sec. 3. "Any salaried officer, clerk 
or other employee may be suspended 
by the President or Superintendent of 
Schools. ..." 

Sec. 4, Par. 2. " The President shall 
exercise general supervision over the 
transaction of the business affairs of 
the Board of Education and shall 
have the power to require that re- 
ports be made to him by any olhcer 
or employee for his use and informa- 
tion, or for presentation to the Board 
for its consideration and action. The 
Superintendent of Schools shall act 
in the administration of business af- 
fairs under the advice and guidance 
of the President." 

First Versiooi 
Sec. 6, Par. 5. The Superintendent 
of Schools " shall recommend to the 
Board of Education the organization 
of day and evening schools and other 
educational and recreational activi- 
ties into major divisions, each of 
which shall be supervised by an asso- 
ciate superintendent, to be assigned 
by the Superintendent of Schools, 
subject to the approval of the Board 
of Education." 

Sec. 6, Par. 8. Relative to the Su- 
perintendent of Schools, " In his ab- 
sence or inability to serve, the Board 
of Education shall designate an as- 
sociate superintendent to serve as 
acting Superintendent of Schools." 

Sec. 7, Par. 10. Relative to the 
Board of Superintendents, " It shall 
make rules and regulations with the 
approval of the Board of Education 
for the admission of pupils to the 
schools, for their promotion, gradua- 
tion and for their transfer from one 
school to another." 



Amended Version 

"Any salaried officer, clerk or other 
employee may be suspended by the 
Superintendent of Schools. . . .' 



" The President shall perform the 
functions that appertain to the office 
of a presiding officer. The Board 
may require that reports be made for 
its consideration and action by any 
officer or employee." 



Amend ed Version 
The Superintendent of Schools 
" shall recommend to the Board of 
Education the organization of day 
and evening schools and other edu- 
cational and recreational activities 
into major divisions. Each of said 
divisions shall be supervised by an 
associate superintendent, to be as- 
signed by the Super inter dent of 
Schools." 



" In his absence or inability to 
serve, he shall designate an associate 
superintendent as acting superintend- 
ent of schools." 



" It shall make rules and regula- 
tions for the admission of pupils to 
the schools, for their promotion and 
graduation and for their transfer 
from one school to another." 



The testimony of the Superintendent of Schools before the 
Committee on September 14, 1921, on this subject was as follows 
(Vol. Ill, p. 1407) : 

" Q. I understood you to say that reasonable coordination 
could be expected from the educational system as it is now 



4t) 

organized ; that is, between the Board of Education and the 
Superintendent and the Board of Associate Superintendents. 
That works well, does it ? A. Within the Board, yes. That 
is, between the Board of EdvTcation, the Board of Superin- 
tendents, and the Superintendent of Schools. 

" Q. They cooperate with a reasonable degi^ee of success 
and efficiency ? A. Yes, sir, they do now. 

" Senator Downing : In harmony ? 

" The Witness : Yes. It took a good while to get har- 
mony, naturally. I might explain here that this new law 
created an entirely new condition, and the tradition was in 
the Board of Education that affairs should be carried on as 
they had been carried on before this law, and in the carrying 
out of the business of the Board, there may have been a 
little conflict with the powers of the Superintendent of 
Schools, as he conceived them, and the Superintendent of 
Schools, of course, in his high regard for the sacredness of 
his oliice, had to protest against any such action and appeal 
to the State Commissioner. That was perfectly natural. 
There was not any acrimony on either side. It was simply 
a definition of powers. It took two years to straighten that 
out. 

" Q. You have it straightened out now ? A. Yes, sir, it 
is straightened out now. 

" Q. And the present workings are smooth ? A. At pres- 
ent, yes, sir." 

A situation where a Board of Education, nominally the head 
of a school system., is by statute given inferior powers to those of 
one of its subordinates, is unwholesome and subversive of dis- 
cipline. It is liard to see hov/ a self-respecting Board of Educa- 
tion could acquiesce in such a condition. Responsibility and 
authority should be placed in the same hands. If a Board of 
Education is not deemed competent to administer the aifairs of 
the school system, the remedy lies not in elevating an appointee 
of that Board to a position superior to that of the Board itself, 
but in changing the character of the Board. 

A continuance of this unwholesome condition would be most 
unfortunate. The Board of Education should be the unquestioned 
fiscal and policy determining head of the school system and it 
should liave full power to delegate to its subordinates the responsi- 



50 

bilitv of carrying out the policies upon whicli it determines. 
It is of course tnie that a Board of Education has not the technical 
pedagogical training possessed bj the professional staff and 
that lay interference in the actual teaching of the children 
might be most dangerous, and that certain safegaiards must 
be established by law which will insure a reasonable degree of 
freedom to the professional head of the school system. On the 
other hand there is ample evidence that the law under which 
the Board of Education now operates does not satisfactorily 
meet this problem. In a city like ISTew York, w^hich has the 
greatest educational problem in the world, it does not necessarily 
follow that the professional schoolman best qualified to carry out 
the educational program of the schools will also possess the quali- 
fications to supervise the strictly business duties of the school 
system, such as the purchase of supplies, the construction and 
alteration of buildings, the assignment of janitors and other em- 
ployees, etc., even if he had the time. In a smaller city, where 
these business matters do not constitute the burden that they do 
in I^ew York, the Superintendent may be able to exercise the two 
functions without detriment to either. This is not likely, how- 
ever, ever to be true in 'New York City, and yet under the present 
Education Law the Superintendent of Schools is made the execu- 
tive officer of the Board of Education, with jurisdiction not only 
over the educational side of the Board's work, but also over the 
Board's business activities. Authority should, therefore, be given 
to the Board of Education to delegate the non-professional and 
administrative duties to some officer other than the Superintend- 
ent of Schools, if it deems it wise to do so. 

3. Possibility of Conflict Bctireen the Board of Education and the 
Municipal Authorities BeJative to their Respective Powers 

The repeal of most of the educational chapter of the charter 
and the enactment of an entirely new statute changing the rela- 
tionship between the Board of Education and the city authorities 
afforded an opportunity for either friction or co-operation in the 
working out of the new relationship. From the records it appears 
that it was friction and not co-operation which resulted, and this 
in spite of the fact that the Board of Education was composed 
wholly of persons appointed by the present Mayor. 

The chief points at issue are set forth fully in a brief submit- 
ted on April 4, 1919, by the Superintendent of Schools to a Com- 



51 

mittee of the Board of Regents, requesting relief from "the unlaw- 
ful control of the public school system ... by the municipal 
authorities." This brief noted the following points. 

1. That the municipal authorities diverted the State school 

moneys for 1918 amounting to some $2,300,000 from the 
Board of Education to the general fund for the reduction 
of taxation, following the provisions of Sec. 1102 of the 
charter instead of Sec. 880 of the Education Law. 

2. That the municipal authorities sought to control educational 

policies and administrative details by a minvito segregation 
of appropriations and the imposition of terms and condi- 
tions. 

3. That the municipal authorities assumed a jurisdiction over 

administrative employees of the Board and by withholding 
their pay worked great hardship. 

4. That the municipal authorities sought to gain entrance into 

the school system and establish jurisdiction over school affairs 
through the intrusion of the Commissioner of x\ccounts into 
the business of the Board. 

5. That the attitude of the Mayor, as indicated by his oral and 

Avritten utterances, was significant of the relationship be- 
tween the City and the scliool authorities. 

The Mayor's attitude toward school affairs was further devel- 
oped in the testimony of the Committee, copies of letters written 
by him having been read into the record. 

Extracts from these letters and from others in the Committee's 
possession follow: 

(Vol. Ill, p. 1272) From the Mavor to Mr. Prall, Nov. 25, 
1918. 

The by-laws "now pending and supported by Superintend- 
ent Ettinger would place that department in a position that 
would require all reports upon investigations ordered by 
the Board of Education to come to the Board through the 
Superintendent. This is part of a policy which, if persisted 
in, makes the Sui)erintendent a dictator and practically the 
superior of the Board of Education. 

"Superintendent Ettinger is submissive to and is practi- 
cally controlled by Cook, the Auditor, who is the trouble- 
maker in the Board of Education and has little regard for 
the expenditure of money appropriated for educational pur- 
poses. 



"I regret to be obliged to write yen about this, but unless 
the Board of Education puts an end to the dictation of Cook, 
through Ettinger, there is little hope that we will be able to 
accomplish anything for the improvement of school condi- 
tions in this city. A year has almost passed and practically 
nothing in a constructive way has been accomplished by the 
new Board of Education. 

"Won't you please exercise the rights given you under the 
law to see that the Board of Education and not the subordi- 
nates run the schools of this City ? " 

When questioned about the "Cook" referred to in this letter, 
President Prall testified, "He is an auditor, a very good auditor; 
understands his business thoroughly. We depend on him abso- 
lutely." 

"Q. He has the confidence of the Board ? A. We depend 
on him absolutely. 

"Q. He has the confidence of the Board ? A. He has. 
"Q. And Ettinger the same ? A. Yes, sir. 

(Vol. Ill, p. 1277) From the Mayor to Mr. Prall, June 27, 
1919. 

"My Dear Commissioner : I wish you would confer with 
the members of the Board of Education and see to it that 
no increases in salary are made in the Educational Depart- 
ment, until such time as we find how financial matters stand 
in the Department. 

"Cook, Ettinger and Company have so bungU'd matters 
that it will be hard to straighten things out." 

(Vol. Ill, ]). 1277) From lhe ]\rayor to :\rr. Prall, June 14, 
1919. 

"Dear Sir: I note that Superintendent Ettinger, who is 
anxious to have the Legislature increase his salary by $5,000, 
which the Board of Estimate and Apportionment opposed, 
is attempting to give the public the impression that the Board 
of Estimate and Apportionment is opposed to keeping open 
the swimming pools in the public schools. This is absolutely 
false, and Ettinger knows it. 

"There has been $45,000,000 appropriated by the present 
Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the public schools 
of the city, and out of that there will be sufiicient to pay the 
few attendants necessary, the cost of which is less than 
$7,000, to look after the swimming pools for the summer. 



" Ettiiiji'or had no trouble in finding money out of the 
$45,000,000 to start new actixdties so that his friends could 
get high salaried jobs and increases in salary for other Ettin- 
ger favorites. 

''A man who resorts to such methods to mislead the public 
is not the proper person to be Superintendent of the Schools 
of the City of K'ew York." 

On August 6, 1919, the Mayor referred to the Police Commis- 
sioner for investigation an anonymous letter charging that the 
Superintendent of Schools had improperly pensioned a teacher. 
The Police Department made an investigation and reported on 
Sept. 3, 1919, naturally finding nothing to support the accusa- 
tion as all pensions are under the jurisdiction of the Teachers' 
Retirement Board and not under the Superintendent of Schools. 

On September 2, 1020, the Mayor wrote President Prall as 
follows: 

''Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of September 
1st with reference to the refusal of the Department of 
Finance to honor the payrolls of the Board of Education 
so that the teaching force will receive the increases granted 
them under the mniidatoi-v legislation passed by the Legis- 
lature at its last session. 

''The Board of Education should immediately begin man- 
damus proceedings against the Comptroller to compel him 
to y)ay the salaries now legally due the teachers. 

" T have directed Corporation Counsel O'Brien to confer 
with you vvithout delay to the end that the teachers' salaries 
be paid wi^^hout any further quibbling.'' 

On Septenil)er 2;>, 1010, the Mayor wrote President Prall in 
part as follows : 

'' Ettinger bitterly opposed the investigation of the expen- 
diture of $44,000,000 appropriated for educational purposes. 
He now seems to have the City Club behind him to help him 
thwart your investigation of the finances of the educational 
department and ether conditions in our school system. The 
Board of Education should take some action so that Ettinger 
will give his time to educating the children and bettering 
conditions in our public schools instead of playing education 
politics and making trouble for those who want school-houses 
erected and the children given a proper education.'' 



54 

On December 4, 1919, the Mayor wrote the Corporation. 
Counsel as follows: 

" Dear Mr. Burr: I congratulate you upon your success 
in the Court of Appeals in the case of Hirshfield, Commis- 
sioner of Accounts of the City of Xew York against Cook, 
Auditor of the Educational Department. I understand the 
decision was unanimous in favor of the city investigating 
the financial condition of the educational system. 

'' The Board of Education have at all times, as you know, 
been in favor of a thorough investigation of the financial 
condition of the educational system under Superintendent 
Ettinger, but this policy was opposed by Superintendent Et- 
tinger and Auditor Cook, and other prominent persons in the 
city who for some reason, feel that the taxpayers should not 
know what is being; done with their monev. However, the 
Court of Appeals has sustained the city's contention and the 
investigation can now go on. 

" If Ettinger and Cook had not been encouraged by Fine- 
gan of the State Educational Department they would not 
have attempted to override the action of the Board of Educa- 
tion, their superiors, and the people of this city would have 
known long ago whether the finances of the Board of Educa 
tion were being properly expended. 

" The decision of the Court of Appeals should be suffi- 
cient to convince Superintendent Ettinger that his superiors, 
the Board of Education, must be recognized, and that he can- 
not override them M^itli the aid of De|mty Einegan at 
Albany. 

" Superintendent Ettinger can now devote his time to the 
proper housing and education of the children and the better- 
ing of the moral tone of the schools of the city. 

" The people of the city appropriate millions of dollars 
yearly for the better education of their children. They 
want a sufficient number of school-houses to properly house 
the little ones and a thorough fundamental education given 
to them. They do not want their money wasted for unneces- 
sary textbooks, fads, frills and fancies. 

" It is a pleasure to remember that the great judges of the 
Court of Appeals have stood by the people and against the 
traction interests in their fight for an increased fare, and 
again by the people and against those in the school system 



55 

who objected to the people knowing what is done with the 
millions they appropriate yearly for education, as well as 
the many other important cases which are of great interest 
and importance to the people." 

On December 9. 1919, President Prall wrote the Mayor as fol- 
lows (Vol. Ill, p.' 1282) : 

" My Dear Mr. Mayor: Some time between Friday even- 
ing, December 5th, and yesterday (Monday) moniing, De- 
cember Sth, certain corresjx>ndence in my files, i. e., all the 
letters received by the President of the Board of Education 
from the Corporation Counsel, and all the duplicate 
copies of letters sent to the Corporation Counsel during the 
period from January, 1919, to date, were surreptitiously 
removed. 

" I, therefore, respectfully request that you assign to this 
case capable men from the detective bureau of the Police De- 
partment in order that I may apprehend the person or per- 
sons of-uiltv of this outrage." 

Mr. Prall testified that he regarded this as an important loss 
but that the guilty parties were never apprehended. In reply to 
the question whether there were any matters pending at the time 
of the theft on which the correspondence had a bearing Mr. Prall 
stated (Vol. Ill, p. 1285): 

'" I think the controversy between the Superintendent of 
Schools and the Commissioner of Accounts was on at that 
time." 

On December 20, 1919, the Mayor wrote President Prall a 
letter in which the following statement is made: 

" There is no discipline in the educational system under 
Superintendent Ettingcr. Certain principals and certain 
high officials spend little time performing the duties for 
which they are paid. Some action should be taken by tlia 
Board of Education to punish insubordination." 

The y)crson not already familiar with conditions in Xew York 
City during the past four years must read this coiTespondence 
with amazement. But even the foregoing extracts do not tell the 
whole story of the antagonism between municipal and educational 
authorities. 

The Court of Appeals decided a case on l^ovember 22. 1921, 
that may prove of great significance in the future determination 



50 

of the relationship between municipal and educational authori- 
ties, but unless the City and the Board of Education can agree 
as to the bearing cf this decision upon the current business of the 
public school system there may be frequent recourse to litigation 
of a similar nature. A certain cure would be the revision of the 
Education Law as affecting New York City. The decision 
referred to is printed in the New York Law Journal for Decem- 
ber 20, 1921, and reads in part as follows: 

" ISectiou 880 of the Education Law provides that all 
funds coliectted or received from any source for school 
purjjoses shall be paid into the treasury of the city and shall 
be credited to the board of education ; that such funds shall 
be disbursed only by authority of the board of education 
and iipon written orders drawn on the city treasurer or 
other fiscal otiicer of the city, such orders to be signed by the 
superintendent of schools and the secretary of the board of 
education or such other officer as the board may authorize. 
The city treasurer is inhibited from permitting the use of 
said funds for any purpose other than that for which they 
are lawfully authorized, or paying out said funds except on 
audit of tlie hoard of educdtion and the countersignature of 
the comptroller. A casual reading of the Education La^w 
leads to the conclusion, so tersely stated in the Gunnison case, 
that the only relation of the city to the subject of education 
is as custodian of the school funds and to disburse the same 
according to the instructions of the board of education. 

" The language quoted from subdivision 7, ' the board of 
education shall administer all moneys appropriated or avail- 
able for educational purposes in the city, subject to the pro- 
visions of law relating to the audit and payment of salaries 
and other claims by the department of finance,' must be 
read in connection with section 880 of the Education Law, 
which provides that school funds shall be disbursed only by 
the board of education, and clothes that body with power of 
audit. 
^ " The power vested in the board of education to administer 
the school fund is a grant of authority to that body to fix 
salaries of all employees of the board. Such salaries when 
fixed by the board are presumably embodied in the estimate 
filed with the board of estimate and apportionment. Upon 
receipt of a requisition from the board of education the 



57 

comptroller is authorized to ascertain whether or not the 
requisition made upon him embraces charges against the 
education fund as disclosed in the record in his department 
relating to the board of education. If such requisition be 
found correct there remains but one dutj on the part of the 
comptroller, viz, to draw the necessary warrant for the pay- 
ment of the salaries, etc. He is powerless to exercise a power 
of audit conferred on the board of education. We cannot 
ascribe to the Legislature an intention to provide for two 
several boards of audit. The language used in subdivision 7 
was applicable only to the procedure to be adopted by the 
board of education that in the disbursement of its funds it 
shall adopt the procedure prevailing in the case of claims 
against the city, require as it did in the case at bar pre- 
sentation of the claim, proofs in support of the validity of 
the same, the extent and value of the labor and material and 
generally all information obtainable relating thereto before 
any allowance or audit of the same shall be made. Had 
relator in the first instance filed its claim with the comp- 
troller, as is asserted it should have done, and the comptroller 
audited the same for a stated amount and drawn a warrant 
for the same on the city treasurer, the latter officer could 
not pay the same save by a violation of the provision of the 
Education Law, which prohibits the treasurer from making 
payment from the school fund except on audit of the board 
of education." 

Ir is regrettable, to say the least, that the possibility for such 
controversies should exist and that if existing, the issues should 
have been raised. It is equally regi-ettable that it should have been 
necessary for the parties to such disputes to have recourse to the 
courts, to the Regents and to the State Commissioner of Educa- 
tion, because whichever side was favored in the decisions, the 
litigation, confusion and consequent irritation must necessarily 
react on the children whose education is suffering from the dis- 
agreement lietween school and city authorities. So far as the 
wording of the statutes affords an excuse for such conditions the 
statutes should be amended and the excuse removed. 

This decision of the Court of Appeals lends judicial sanction to 
the suggestion that the dual control over school moneys hereto- 
fore exercised or claimed be ended, by specifically excluding the 
municipal authorities from any control over school funds. 



58 

Jf. Failure to Concentrate in Clear and Unmistakable Langvxige 
Full Besponsihility for the Proper Administrntion of the 
Puhlic School System Either on the Municipal Authorities, 
the Board of Education or the State of New Yorl; 

The evidence to support this interpretation is adequately set 
forth under the two sub-divisions immediately preceding. It is 
only necessary to add here that if the State is to assume full 
responsibility for the proper administration of the New York 
City school system it should enunciate that fact in clear terms 
and should specifically repeal those sections of the charter and 
other local laws in conflict with that theory. 

5. Limitation of the Powers of the Board of Education 

This point has been touched upon under sub-division 2 above. 
The powers of the present Board of Education are demonstrably 
far inferior to those of its predecessor. It cannot be successfully 
argued that the powers of a Board of Education should be limited 
in favor of one of its subordinates, or that if local control is desir- 
able the Board should be unable to modify or dispense with two 
powerful agencies nominally subordinate to it, viz., the Board 
of Superintendents and the Bureau of Compulsory Education. 
The State Education Law in so far as it applies to the City of Xew 
York clearly curtails the power of the Board of Education. It 
does not seem that the experience of the past four years indicates 
that this was a wise provision. So long as responsibility and 
authority are not entrusted to the same hands there is encourage- 
ment for an evasion of obligation and a shifting of blame for 
non-performance. And in all cases of this character the ultimate 
sufferers are the children for whose benefit Boards of Education, 
Boards of Superintendents and school officers are supposedly 
created. 

6. Great Increase in the Powers of the Superintemlent of Schools 

This matter has also been discussed at length under sub-division 
2 above and it will not be further dealt with here. 

7. Perpetuation of the Board of Superintendents 

The Board of Superintendents is a unique institution. It is an 
inheritance from the time of consolidation (1898) when it was 
apparently deemed desirable to carry over into the structure of 
the Greater City local officers of the Boards of Education of New 
York and Brooklvn. It survived all the amendments to the 



59 

Greater !N^e\v York charter and was continued in the education 
law of 1917 as a mandatory institution. But this law while pro- 
viding a general statute for all cities of the State, established a 
Board of Superintendents only in the City of New York by the 
common expedient of creating such a board in "a city having a 
population of one million or more." It is hard to see why the 
requirements of a city with a population of over a million should 
differ so materially from those of a city of under a million. If a 
proper school administration requires a Board of Superintendents 
in the one case, why does it not require a Board of Superintend- 
ents in the other case ? And if a Superintendent and a group 
of iVssistant Superintendents can operate successfully in a city of 
less than a million, why should it be necessary for a larger city to 
})lace its educational administration in the hands of a board of 
nine persons and to be able to make progress only when a majority 
of such board can be secured. The opportunity for discussion by 
a board cannot always be said to accelerate school business. The 
President of the Board of Education sought to explain the delay 
of his Board in adopting by-laws by saying that the Board of 
Superintendents had been considering a draft of by-laws "I guess 
for a year, perhaps for two years." Examination of the minutes 
of the Board of Superintendents shows the many discussions and 
the many references and reports relative to matters which should 
be settled by prompt executive action. The records show that one 
of the major contributing factors to the delay which has charac- 
terized the provision of additional school facilities is the fact 
that the Board of Superintendents has to originate the program 
and approve the layout of the new buildings contemplated therein. 
Much time could be saved in the working out of an educa- 
tional program, and that the management of the schools would 
bo much more efficient, if the Board of Superintendents were 
abolished as a board, and if the Superintendent of Schools, with 
a staff of competent Assistant Su])erintondents, was made the 
agent of the Board of Education in the carrying out of educational 
policies. 

S. Pcrpchindo)) of Hie Bureau of Compulsori/ Echicnlwn, 
School Census and Child Welfare 

Reference has already been made to the provision of law, mak- 
ing mandatory a Bureau of Compulsory Education, Schorl Census 
and Child Welfare. The State Education Law, passed in 1917. 
did not single cut this bureau for special recognition. It was 



00 

left on a parity with the other administrative bureaus of the Board, 
subject to modification, abolition and consolidation by the Board 
of Education, 

Chapter 612, Laws of 1920, however, added a new section to the 
State Education Law, placing the Bureau of Compulsory Educa- 
tion in the mandatory class with the Board of Superintendents 
and the Board of Examiners. This amendment applied only to 
the City of l^ew York as it was worded to affect " a city having 
a population of one million or more." 

Mandatory legislation of this character affecting only the 
City of i^ew York, particularly when in the form of amend- 
ments to general State acts, should not be passed unless there 
is a compelling reason in its favor. It is hard to believe 
that any such compelling reason existed in the case of the statute 
in question. If the enforcement of the compulsory education law, 
in the City of New York, requires the organization of a Bureau 
of Compulsory Education, the Board of Education can be relied 
upon to establish such a bureau, but if the Board of Education 
prefers to enforce the compulsory education law through some 
agency other than a specially constituted l)ureau, it should be 
permitted to do so. 

It is the prerogative of the State to enact a compulsory educa- 
tion law and to hold Boards of Education responsible for its 
enforcement. It should be the privilege of the Boards cf Educa- 
tion to determine the machinery by which such enforcement is to 
be carried out, and the Board of Education of jSTew York should 
have the same privilege in this respect as is enjoyed by the other 
cities of the State. 

9. Conflict between Section 1102 of the Charter, whicli was not 
specifically repealed, and the State Education Lair, relative 
to the dispositiofi to he made of the City's share of the 
Stale school moneys, the former providing thai swell money 
he credited to the City's general fund for tlie reduction of 
taxation and the latter that it he credited to the Board of 
Education. 

Reference has been made to this matter under subdivision 3, 
above. The controversy was resolved in favor of the Board of 
Educatioii, and at the piesent time, the proceeds of the State's 
apportionment to the City of ISTew York are credited to the Board 
of Education. That the amounts now involved are bv no means 



61 

inconsiderable is shown by the following table, giving the totals 
apportioned to ]^ew York for the calendar years 1914 to 1922, 
inclusive : 

Amount Apportioned 
Year to the City 

1914 $1,923,025 00 

1915 2,115,679' 73 

1916 2,220,730 03 

1917 2,414,837 16 

1918 2,321,191 13 

1919 2,700,657 19 

1920 5,025,570 17 

1921 16,938,023 85 

1922 *18,097,534 51 

* Estimated. 

10. Increase from 3 mills to Jf.9 mdlls in the amount ivhicJi the 
City is required annually to appropriate for the use of the 
Board of Education. 

The State's policy of prescribing a certain minimum tax to be 
levied for local school purposes long antedates the creation of the 
Greater City. 

The application of this principle to the present City, however, 
was first made in the Charter, which took effect in 1898, and 
which prescribed a minimum of 4 mills. By Chapter 43, Laws of 
1903, this was reduced to 3 mills, the reduction taking effect in 
the 1904 Imdget, a provision contemporaneous with the increase 
of nearly a billion and a half dollars in the assessed valuation of 
New York City's real estate, due to a change in the basis of 
assessment. The figure remained 3 mills until the State Law of 
1917 raised it to 4.9 mills. 

The 3 mill tax applied to the 1903 valuations yielded, for the 
purposes of the 1904 budget, $16,297,250.75, as compared with 
$15,428,190.87, which was yielded for the budget of the preced- 
ing year by the 4 mill tax on 1902 values, so the decrease in rate 
really meant an increase of $870,000 in available funds. 

The following table shows the expenditures by the Board of 
Education from its current funds for school purposes from 1910, 
through the first six months of 1921, and gives also the 1922 



02 

budget appropriation from City and State sources. It shows tlie 
tremendous growth that has taken place in the last few years 
in school costs. 

Year Expenditures. 

1910 $28,456,945 68 

1911 28,958,179 29 

1912 33,791,974 40 

1913 35,481,641 12 

1914 38,185,495 90 

1915 39,797,960 64 

1916 39,708,764 22 

1917 41,101,074 41 

1918 43,884,893 59 

1919 45,490,121 68 

1920 66,194,668 04 

1921 (first 6 mos.) 44,828,326 69 

1922 *88,798,546 81 

* IiK-liuling $18.097.534..'31 from the State. 

The fi.rst budget affected by the law increasing the minimum 
provision .for school purposes to the yield of a 4.9 mill tax was 
that for 1918, and the amount appropriated by the City for school 
purposes in that budget was $42,501,156.04, the exact amount of 
the 4.9 mill yield as then computed nnd the approximate amount 
required by the Board of Education as indicated by its expendi- 
tures at the time. It seems clear, therefore, that the legislature 
sought to guarantee to the City's school system, an income suffi- 
cient to meet its requirements, relying on increnses in assessed 
valuation to provide some money at least for expansion, thus 
assuring the Board of Education a reasonable degree of financial 
independence. The 4.9 mill yield, however, has not proved 
wholly adequate. The legislature in 1,919 and 1920 passed laws 
increasing the statutory minimums for teachers' salaries. These 
new schedules, when fully effective, increased the salaries of 
teachers in i^ew York City's schools by about $30,000,000 a year. 
According to figures ]n-epared by the Board of Education, the 
total salary cost for teachers as of December 31, 1919, was 
$37,625,157, and the cost as of Dei-ember 31, 1921, for the same 
staff is estimated at $67,947,108. 



63 

In order to lighten the financial burden imposed by these 
mandatory increases, the Legislature undertook to provide a part 
of the necessary funds and levied a direct tax for educational 
purposes to supplement the local city taxes. 

As shown above, the State funds received by ISTew York from 
1914 to 1919, inclusive, averaged annually about $2,000,000. In 
1921, however, by reason of this action by the Legislature, the 
amount received totals $16,938,023 85, and the estimate for 1922 
is $18,097,534.51. 

But this is not enough to offset the entire additional burden 
in Ne\v York, and, as a result, the schools are again placed in 
financial dependence on the city authorities. The City's appro- 
priation for 1922 for school purposes is $70,701,012.30, whereas 
the 4.9 mill tax on 1921 valuations yields only about $50,000,000. 
The Board of Education is therefore dependent en the City for 
about 30% of its requirements for current running expenses, to 
say nothing of its requirements for new school buildings, altera- 
tions and the like. In this respect, therefore, the situation is 
no better than it was in 1917, when the Board's budget was 
$41,430,447.49, or nearly $16,000,000 in excess of the mandatory 
3-mill tax of $25,753,057.53. 

A most anomalous situation is thus created. The Board of 
Education, which is recognized as an agent of the State by the 
new Education Law, is at the mercy financially of the local city 
authorities, who have it in their power completely to wreck the 
school system. That this is a power that may be exercised before 
long is evidenced by two facts. 

The requirements of the Board of Education for funds from 
City sources as set forth in the budget for 1921 amounted to 
$77,946,038.77, but because, in spite of a most unusual increase 
in the assessed valuations for 1921, the Board of Estimate found 
that it could not appropriate the full amount it desired to for 
city and county purposes and remain within the 2% constitutional 
limitation as interpreted by it, it arbitrarily reduced the amount 
appropriated for the Board of Education to $50,720,880.83, 
leaving a deficit of $27,225,157.94 U) he made up during the 
year. The action of the Legislature in continuing for another 
year the direct State levy for teachers' salaries made an additional 
$7,225,000 available, reducing the deficit to $20,000,000. 

The Board of Estimate undertook to finance this deficit by the 
issue of special revenue bends and the transfer of available bal- 



64 

ances from other appropriations, but throughout the gi-eater part 
of 1921, the Board of Education had no assurance, other than the 
statement of the Board of Estimate, that the necessary funds for 
the support of the schools would be provided by the city. This 
first move by the city authorities can be summarized as an arbi- 
trary refusal to appropriate in the annual budget a sufficient sum 
for school purposes, coupled with the undertaking to make up the 
deficit from other city sources during the year. 

The second fact is of more recent occurrence and it may be 
summarized as a desire on the part of the city authorities arbi- 
trarily to reduce the budget appropriations for the Board of Edu- 
cation below requirements and to deny responsibility for the 
deficit, passing it along to the State, This is evidenced by a com- 
munication sent by the Comptroller to the Board of Aldermen, 
on December 2, 1921, calling attention to the fact that the prob- 
able tax rate for city and county purj^oses in two of the five 
counties would exceed 2%, and that in view of the constitutional 
provisions, it would be safer to reduce the budget so as to bring 
the rates below 2%. He recommended that this reduction be 
eifected by taking $10,000,000 away from the appropriations 
made for the Board of Education, saying: 

^'Education is a State function, and because it was a State 
function the legislature increased teachers' salaries in the 
■ City of New York at the rate of $31,000,000 per year, but 
when it came to providing the means wherewith to meet this 
increased outlay, the legislature did not consider that educa- 
tion was a State function. It passed this liability on to the 
City of 'New York, and, in order that a show of economy 
might be made in the State's appropriation bills, the amount 
provided to aid the City of New York to carry this increased 
budget was less than half of the sum required. 

"■Unless the State is to be faithless to the cause of educa- 
tion, the legislature can do no less than provide the necessary 
moneys to sustain the activities in the manner that it has 
required." 

The significance of this is not so much the speciousness of the 
argument as the fact that the exigencies of municipal finance have 
led the city authorities to assume a hostile attitude toward the 
city schools. The Board of Aldermen wisely rejected the Comp- 
troller's recommendation, but next year, it may very well be that 
the Board of Estimate, acting at the Comptroller's instance, may 



65 

refuse to appropriate sufficient funds for the schools, and, as the 
Board of Aldermen has no power to increase appropriations, 
there would be no means for compelling the City to make the 
necessary appropriation, so long as the statutory minimum of 4.9 
mills is provided. 

In connection with the Comptroller's recommendation, how- 
ever, mention should be made of the fact that the Mayor testified 
that he was in favor of the increased salaries for teachers, con- 
cerning which the Comptroller complains, that the city's finan- 
cial condition was and is such that it could not possibly provide 
the money for these increases had the legislature not come to its 
aid by imposing a State tax for the purpose and that the amount 
to be received by the city during 1922, from State school moneys 
is estimated at about $4,000,000 more than the amount of the 
direct State tax which the city has had to include in the 1922 
budget, so that the city gets from the State more than it pays by 
about $4,000,000. 

It seems highly desirable, therefore, that the Legislature take 
the necessary steps to make it impossible for the City to starve 
the schools at will. In doing so, however, regard should be had, 
not only to the current running expenses as reflected in the appro- 
priations to the general and special school funds, but also to the 
requirements for new school accommodations. Only half of the 
problem would be solved if the Board of Education were depend- 
ent on the City for funds for new buildings, because there is no 
more reason to assume that the City, when confronted by the con- 
stitutional debt limit, would treat the schools any more gener- 
ously than when confronted with the constitutional limit on tax- 
ing power. 

The City's appropriation for the IJoard of Education in the 
1.922 budgk of $70,701,012.30 represents about 7 mills on the 
1921 valuation of about ten billions. An increase in the manda- 
tory minimum from 4.9 mills to 7 mills would therefore insure 
suflicient funds to conduct the schools at the present rates of 
expenditure, provided the State continues its distribution of school 
moneys in the same amount as at present. If, in addition, the 
equivalent of another mill or fraction thereof were set aside by 
statute for new school projects, to be provided by taxation or bond 
issue, the Board of Education would have the assurance of a defi- 
nite sum annually for such purposes. 



CO 

The total expenditure from 1910 to the middle of 1921 for new 
buildings and sites was $46,092,839.88, making an average 
annual expenditure of $4,008,073.03 during this period. This 
amount has demonstrably been insufficient to keep pace with the 
growing requirements of the City and it should not be a criterion 
in determining the funds to be made available by the City in the 
future for such purposes. On the other hand, the City's financial 
condition is such that it cannot be expected to make up at once the 
deficiencies of prior years in school constniction. The Board of 
Education could easily and advantageously spend many more 
millions than the City could furnish. It is necessary, therefore, 
to effect a compromise based on the City's financial ability and the 
requirements of the schools and adequate to give the Board of 
Education the necessary financial independence. 

11. The inclusion iviihin (lie State's educational system, of City 
Boards of Education, including the Board of Education 
of the City of Neiv York and the subordinatio7i of the 
municipcd authorities to the State in matters of school 
administratio7i. 

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that the apparent at- 
tempt by the new State Law of 1917, to secure this change in the 
relationship between the City, the Board of Education and the 
State, was not successful. The present division of responsibility, 
while differing from the j)TGceding division of responsibility, is 
none the less embarrassing and is not conducive to the efficient 
administration of the schools. The history of public education in 
Xew York State shows that the State has increasingly concerned 
itself with the education of its children. Generally speaking, 
however, its concern has been to see to it that the local authorities 
fulfilled their responsibilities. The details of school administra- 
tion were left to communities, while the State prescribed general 
}"equirements, supervised the carrying out of these requirements, 
appropriated money to help meet these requirements and passed 
laws which sought to guarantee a proper education to its future 
citizens. Experience seems to show that this is a wise position 
for the State. It cannot successfully and should not centralize in 
its own hands the administrative control of local schools. It can, 
however, exercise general supervision, establish minimum i*e(]uire- 
ments, set up local agencies to administer the affairs of local 
schools, and see to it that these agencies are not interfered with 



67 

in the performance of their duty. Education is not a State func- 
tion, it is a State responsibility. The guaranteeing that every 
child in every community shall have an opportunity for education, 
however, is a State function and so is the exercise of compulsion 
on local communities to provide adequate educational facilities. 
The State can enunciate that principle and it can establish in 
'New York City a Board of Education with complete financial 
independence, subject to restrictions imposed by the State and the 
State only. The City can be comjDelled to furnish the necessary 
funds, but in the interests of the taxpayer these funds must be 
provided out of the 2 per cent tax which the City may, under the 
constitution, levy for city and county purposes. 



DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE 
STATE AND CITY OF NEW YORK PEIOE TO 189Y.* 



Historical Developmei^t of the Educational Section of 
THE State Constitution 

Article IX, section 1 of the Constitution of the State of New 
York reads as follows : 

" The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and 
support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the 
children of this State may be educated." 

This section was added to the Constitution by the Constitu- 
tional Convention of 1894 upon the recommendation of the Com- 
mittee on Education which reported an educational article of 
which the foregoing was the first section. The Committee's report 
contained the following statement: 

" The present Constitution is silent upon the vital point 
of the establishment and maintenance of a sysrem of free 
common schools. It may be urged that no imagination can 
picture this State refusing to provide education for its 
children, and for this reason the declaration which your com- 
mittee have reported in section 1 might, no doubt, be omitted 
without endangering the stability of our present system of 
education. But the same reasoning would apply to many 
other matters though fundamental ; and it is a significant fact 
that within the last half century of constitutional revision 
no other State of the Union has considered it superfluous or 
unwise to make such an affirmation in its fundamental law. 



*Most of tlie historical material presented here lias been taken from Lin- 
coln's " Constitutional Hiftory of New York," vol. Ill, pp. 475-580, and from 
Palmer's " The New York Public School." In many instances sentences have 
been borrowed bodily, and. generally speaking, there has been little more than 
summarization and rearrangement of the material collected by these authors. 
Material has also been taken from the School Inquiry Report published in 
1913 by the Board of Estimate, especially from vol. Ill, pp. 45-108. 

[68] 



69 

Your committee, tlierefore, recommends the ailoption of 
section 1 as an explicit direction to the legislature to pro- 
vide for a system of free common schools wherein all the 
children of this state may be educated. This requires, not 
simply schools, hut a system; not merely that they shall be 
common, but free, and not only that they shall be numerous, 
but that they shall be sufficient in number, so that all tho 
children of the state may, unless otherwise provided for, 
receive in them their education. No desire to confine the 
new Constitution to the narrowest possible limits of space 
should prevent the adoption of an enactment declaring in tho 
strongest possible terms the interest of the state in its com- 
mon schools. Whatever may have been their value hereto- 
fore, and language has been strained to the utmost in apply- 
ing to them terms of praise, their importance for the future 
cannot be overestimated. The public problems confronting 
the rising generation will demand accurate knowledge and 
the highest development of reasoning power more than ever 
before ; and, in view of the state's policy as to higher educa- 
tion, to which reference will presently be made, too much 
attention cannot be called to the fact that the highest leader- 
ship is impossible without intelligent following, and that 
the foundation of our educational system must bo permanent, 
broad, and firm if the superstructure is tO' be of real value.'' 

The Constitutional Convention of 1894 found an educational 
system in two parts, one culminating in the University Law of 
1892 and the other in the Common School Law of 1894. In 
addition, there were numerous independent statutes relating to 
both departments of education. The Convention combined both 
branches in one educational article and the state electorate by 
adopting the revised constitution definitely declared that ele- 
mentary, secondary and higher education should be maintained 
at public expense within limitations prescri])ed by the State 
Legislature. By this action there was incorporated in the funda- 
mental law of the State a policy which, as a matter of fact, had 
existed for mauv years through legislation. The constitutional 
provision unified the two systems al)ove referred to, but both 
systems were prior to 1894 subject to State control. 

The following brief sketch of the development of a jniblic edu- 
cational policy in the State of T^cw York shows tho gradual forma- 
tion of a new conception that ])ul)lic ('(lucation was a vital con- 
cern of the State. 



70 

Dutch Colonial Period 

The Dutch were firm believers in education and carried to the 
new world their determination to provide for the instruction of 
their youth. An official school and school master were provided 
in New Amsterdam as early as 1633. During the Dutch control 
of New York the expense of maintaining the schools was some- 
times paid in part from the treasury of the Dutch West India 
Company, sometimes from excise moneys, sometimes, apparently, 
by general tax and, in addition, teachers derived a part of their 
income from direct payment by pupils. Religious and secular 
instruction were combined in the same course and the same per- 
son was often both minister and school master. The Dutch West 
India Company began the administration of the colony which it 
was permitted to establish in America by invoking the direct aid 
of the minister and the school master. A union of church and 
state was not then deemed objectionable. But while the govern- 
ment through the church and sometimes by direct taxation 
encouraged the formation of schools, it did not consider itself 
responsible for the development of a consistent and comprehensive 
educational policy for the children of the colony. 

English Colonial Period, 166Jf — 1776 

The transfer of New York from Dutch to English control in 
1664 had little immediate effect on the educational policy of the 
colony. The Dutch policy was not interrupted, but as the Eng- 
lish apparently did not regard education as an essential subject 
of public administration, little was done to foster schools at pub- 
lic expense. English teachers were licensed to teach schools, but 
usually without public aid. The colonial government acting 
under orders from the crown tried to keep the control of educa- 
tion as a prerogative of the Church of England, and, accord- 
ingly, under the instructions of colonial governors school masters 
were pemiitted to teach only if licensed, first by the Archbishop 
of Canterbury and later iu the history of the colony by the Bishop 
of London. During the first few years of English jurisdiction 
school masters were also required to obtain a civil license from 
the governor, but this practice later fell into disuse. Education, 
while not discouraged by the government, was left largely to 
private enterprise, but under public control, and the schools were 
maintained either directly or indirectly by private contributions 
including the direct ]iayinent of tuition and the funds admin- 



71 

istered by some society organized for that or similar purposes. 
The English " Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in For- 
eign Parts," for example, carried on an extensive educational 
work in the colony, establishing schools, appointing teachers and 
often supporting them out of its own treasury. But while the 
schools were, during the latter half of the English Colonial period 
under the general care and supervision of this Society, the gov- 
ernment kept its hand on the school system directly and through 
the instrumentality of the church by the requirements as to the 
licensing of teachers referred to above, and not by direct legis- 
lation of a general character. 

Only two statutes were enacted by the English Colonial gov- 
orament of New York relating directly to education and neither 
of these disclosed any intention to establish a public school sys- 
tem. The first was passed in 1702 and recited that the munici- 
pal authorities of ISTew York had re])resented to the general 
assembly the importance of establishing in that city a free school. 
The assembly thereupon made provision for a grammar school 
and directed that an annual tax of £50 be raised to maintain the 
school. The act was to continue in force seven years. It was not 
then extended. The second statute was passed in 1732 and 
authorized a school in Xew York foi- the teaching of Latin, 
Greek and mathematics. This school was to be free, its expenses 
being paid from moneys received from licenses to hawkers and 
peddlers. The act was limited to five years. It was then con- 
tinued for another year, but was not again renewed. This seems 
to have been the last attempt to establish public schools during 
the (Vdonial period. 

Education under tlie First Constitution, 1777 — 1821 

Education was given no place in the first constitution. The 
Legislature was, therefore, left free to act as it saw fit with 
respect to schools. The Revolutionary War, of course, absorbed 
much if not most of the Legislature's energy and the first definite 
recognition of school needs was tacked on to an act providing for 
the raising of two regiments for volunteer service and for lx)un- 
tics of public land to eneourage enlistments. By this act (Chap- 
ter o2. Laws of 1781) the State reserved in each township five 
hundred acres of public land for the sup])ort of the gospel and 
three hundred and sixty acres for the use of the school. The 
policy of appropriating public lands fox these purposes was con- 
tinued by subsequent b'gislation. and, according to a report by 



72 

the Superintendent of Public Schools in 1839, there had been 
thus reserved up to that time as gospel and school lands 47,620 
acres. This policy obviously was not applicable to all parts of the 
State and necessarily could have only a limited effect. It was 
only an incident in the State's educational development. 

What is said to be the earliest official declaration of a state 
educational program is found in a statement by Governor George 
Clinton to the special session of the Legislature called in 1782 
to devise means for more vigorous prosecution of the war. He 
is quoted as having said: 

" * * * it is the peculiar duty of a government of a 
free state where the highest employments are open to citi- 
zens of every rank to endeavor by the establishment of 
schools and seminaries to diffuse that degree of literature 
which is necessary to the due discharge of public trusts. 
You must be sensible that the war has occasioned a chasm 
in education extremely injurious to the rising generation, 
and this afl'ords an additional consideration for extending 
our earliest care to their instruction." 

In 1784 the Governor repeated his views and the Legislature 
passed an act to establish a university under a Board of Regents. 
If this university had been erected on a broad foundation with- 
out reference to any particular institution then existing, it could 
have supervised all education, but the intervention of Kings Col- 
lege brought about amendments which concentrated on Columbia 
College (the later name for King's College) the energies of 
friends of education in the State. This law of 1784 was 
amended, materially altered in 1787 and in the latter form was 
the basis of the University Law of 1892. 

The Committee of Regents which recommended the modifica- 
tion of 1787 in the University Law made the first direct reference 
to public common schools as such, stating that: 

" They feel themselves bound in faithfulness to add that 
the erecting of public schools for teaching reading, writing 
and arithmetic is an object of very great importance which 
ought not to be left to the discretion of private men, but be 
promoted by public authority." 

The amended law, however, contained no provision for the 
organization of primary education. 

The first free common school established by statute in a settled 
portion of the State was provided for by Chapter 41 of the Laws 



73 

of 1791. The people of Clermont asked authorization from the 
Legislature for the use for school purposes of the surplus of excise 
moneys not needed for the support of the poor, aud this authority 
was granted by the above-mentioned act. 

In 1793, 1794 and 1795 the Regents repeated their recom- 
mendation for the establishment of public schools for the teaching 
of reading, writing and arithmetic, and the Legislature in 1795 
passed a Common School Law (Chapter 75) which appropriated 
£20,000 annually for five years and required each city and county 
to raise by tax a sum equal to one-half the amount apportioned 
to it by the State. These two sums constituted the local school 
fund. There was no rate bill. This law expired in 1800 and was 
not renewed. The Legislature of 1801, however, provided for a 
lottery to raise $100, 0€0, one-half of which was to be used by the 
Regents and the other half to be used for the support of the com- 
mon schools as the Legislature might direct. 

In 1802, 1803 and 1804 the Governor recommended again that 
the Legislature continue the system of common schools. In 1805 
Governor Lewis sent a special message to the Legislature urging 
the adoption of a liberal policy toward education and recom- 
mending that 1,500,000 acres of unappropriated land then owned 
Ijy the State be devoted to educational purposes ; the funds real- 
ized from the sale thereof to be placed under the supervision of the 
Regents ; the interest to be used for the support of colleges, com- 
mon schools and " perhaps of academies." This plan, if adopted, 
would have unified the State's educational system under one head, 
the Regents. The Legislature, however, included in the new law 
only that part of the plan relating to a common school fund and 
set aside only 500,000 acres of unoccupied land for establishing 
the common school fund. The creation of this fund was, appar- 
ently, the only result of Governor Lewis' plan to establish a gen- 
eral system of education. 

In 1810, and again in 1811, Governor Tompkins urged logi?;- 
lative action for popular education, and in the latter year the 
Legislature appointed a commission to study the subject and 
report. The report was submitted in 1812 accompanied by a bill 
which, with modifications, became Chapter 242. This law pro- 
vided for a Superintendent of Common Schools, for the distribu- 
tion of the interest of the common school fund; authorized the 
election of town commissioners and inspectors of schools ; re- 
quired teachers to be examined and licensed by the inspectors: 
provided for school districts in towns, and required a local tax 



74 

for school moneys in addition to the fund distributed by the 
State with the limitation that the offer of State aid must have 
been accepted at a town meeting, in which case a sum equal to 
the State apportionment was to be raised by a town tax. The 
town might also raise an additional sum. These amounts con- 
stituted the local school fund. There was no rate bill. This act 
was revised and repealed in 1814. By the new act the towns 
were required to raise by tax an amount at least as great as the 
amount of the State apportionment, and provision was made for 
the rate bill which was used to collect money for teachers' salaries 
in excess of the amount of the local school fund. The rate bill 
was continued in the revision effected by Chapter 161, Laws of 
1819. The office of Superintendent of Common Schools was 
abolished by Chapter 240, Laws of 1821, and his functions trans- 
ferred to the office of the Secretary of State. 

Education under the Second C onstitui'wn, 1822-18Jf6 

The Constitutional Convention of 1821 gave but little atten- 
tion to the subject of education. The common school fund was 
protected and was made perpetual. Its foundation was enlarged 
to include the proceeds of all the State lands not otherwise appro- 
priated. Except for these provisions, however, the new constitu- 
tion contained no educational material, but during its life con- 
siderable legislation on this subject was enacted, much of it hav- 
ing to do with the training of teachers. By Chapter 133 of the 
Laws of 1843 the Legislature abolished the offices of Commis- 
sioner and Inspector of Common Schools and created the office 
of Town Superintendent of Schools, to be chosen annually by the 
people. The same law authorized the State Superintendent to 
issue teachers' certificates which could be used anywhere in the 
State and were valid until revoked. This act completed the 
policy of supervision by Superintendents, including the State 
Superintendent, Deputy County Superintendents and Town 
Superintendents. 

Prior to 1846 several separate free school laws were enacted. 
But, as a general rule, parents were required to pay a separate 
and additional tax (rate bill) for the instruction of their children, 
if the public money was not sufficient to pay teachers' wnges. 
Poor people might, however, be relieved from this additional 
charge. 

A resolution was offered in the Assemblv of 1846 requesting 
the Committee on Colleges, Academies and Common Schools to 



75 

report on the expediency of providing free schools in all cities 
and also in all incorporated villages with a population of 10.000 
or more. The Committee reported itself in favor of the idea 
but advised postponing action until the Constitutional Convention 
then about to meet could consider the matter. 

Education under the Third Constitution, 18J/-7-lS9Jf. 

The Constitutional Convention in 1846 considered the matter 
of free public education and on the day before adjournment 
adopted two sections to be submitted to the people separately and 
not as part of the Constitution. One section read : 

" The Legislature shall provide for the free education and 
instruction of every child in the state in the common schools 
now established or which hereafter shall be established 
therein." 

The other section related to taxation. These two sections, how- 
ever, were reconsidered by the Convention later in the same day 
and the earlier action reversed. The Convention struck out the 
free school provisions by a vote of 61 to 27. 

Numerous petitions were submitted to the Legislature of 1849 
for a general free school law. The Legislature responded and 
enacted a law providing that: 

" Common schools in the several school districts in this 
state shall be free to all persons residing in the district over 
five and under twenty-one years of age '" and that " free and 
gratuitous education shall be given to each pupil " in all 
public schools. 

A free school law was such a radical departure from tlie exist- 
ing policy of the State, however, that the Legislature decided to 
sulmiit this new law to the electors. It was api)rovcd by them at 
the l^ovember, 1840, election by a vote of 249,872 to 91,951 and 
became effective January 1, 1850. The constitutionality of the 
law was attacked because of the provision requiring its submis- 
sion to the people before becoming effective, and in 1853 the 
Court of Appeals held it to be unconstitutional (8 IST. Y. 483). 

This decision had little practical effect because the law had been 
repealed in 1851, many complaints having been made of the 
oppressive tax burden on account of free schools. Cha|)tpr 151 
of the Laws of 1851 was enacted to provide relief and restored 
the rate bill. In 1855 Governor Clark recommended that the rate 
bill be abolished and that schools be made entirelv free, but the 



76 

revised school law of 1864 (Chapter 555) continued it in force. 
In 1867 Governor Fenton made a similar recommendation and 
the Legislature by Chapter 406 did abolish all rate bills, thus 
making the schools really free. 

In 1853 (Chapter 433) the Legislature sought to encourage 
the establishment of schools by providing for the union of two or 
more districts, or parts of districts, in one school under the imme- 
diate supervision of a Board of Education. These union free 
schools, while in their general character common schools, might 
have an academic department. Thus there was a union of common 
and academic education in the same school. The academic de- 
partment was, however, under the general su}>ervision of the 
Regents. In other respects the Board of Education had the 
" superintendence, management and control of the school." This 
law did not specifically give the Superintendent of Common 
Schools any supervision over a union school but laws relating to 
the powers and duties of trustees of common schools were made 
applicable to boards of education. 

The Superintendent of Public Instruction whose otKcc was cre- 
ated by Chapter 97 of the Laws of 1854 w^as jn-actically the suc- 
cessor of the former Superintendent of Common Schools. He 
was specifically required to 

" visit as often as may bo practicable such and so many of 
the common schools, academies and other literary institu- 
tions of the state as he may deem expedient ; to inquire into 
the course of instruction, management and discipline of such 
institutions, and to report the results of such visitation and 
inspection annually to the Legislature, with such recom- 
mendations and suggestions as he may deem suitable.*' 

In 1856 Governor Clark recommended the abolition of the 
office of Town Superintendent and the creation of local Boards of 
Education. He also urged the more thorough supervision of 
schools, and the Legislature, by Chapter 179 of the Laws of 1856, 
created the office of School Commissioner in each assembly dis- 
trict except in the counties of jSTew York and Kings, to whom was 
given the general power of visitation, inspection and supervision 
of common schools in his district. He was also authorized to 
grant teachers' licenses and to hold teachers' institutes subject to 
niles prescribed by the state 'superintendent. The same act abol- 
ished the office of Town Superintendent of Common Schools. 



77 

By Chapter 555 of the Laws of 1864 the general acts relating 
to public insti-uction were revised and consolidated. Union 
schools were made subject to the visitation of the Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, who was also made responsible for the 
'' general supervision of its board of education and their man- 
agement and the conduct of all its departments of instruction." 
The Superintendent was also empowered to remove members of 
a Board of Education, As a result, a double supervision was 
established for union schools with academic departments, the 
Superintendent being one of the instruments and the Board of 
Regents the other. And, similarly, there was a double inspection 
and distribution of State funds. This duplication of function 
continued until the unification act of 1904. 

The Convention of 1867 included a free school provision in 
its draft of the Constitution. The Commission of 1872 con- 
sidered but did not adopt propositions relating to compulsory 
education and free common school instruction. The Legislature 
of 1876 passed a free school amendment to the Constitution, but 
it was not agreed to by a subsequent Legislature and was not, 
therefore, submitted to the people for acceptance. 'Not until 
1894 were effective steps taken toward the inclusion of a fret.' 
education section in the state constitution. The constitutional 
convention of that year adopted the section quoted at the begin- 
ning of this sketch and that section has remained ever since as 
a part of the state conslitutidii. 

Suininarji 

The foregoing sunnnary of the develoi)nient of constitutional 
free j)ublic education in Xew York shows clearly that the pro- 
cess was not a consistent one. The present system is an outgrowth 
of a variety of conflicting ideas and tendencies. Most of the 
progress has l)een of comparatively recent years. 

The Dutch Colonists had a lively regard for the value of edu- 
cation, but it was not free state education. It was church educa- 
tion sanctioned aud encouraged by the state. The English 
Colonists had no conception of free public education. There were 
no public schools at the end of the colonial period. The general 
policy was to leave education to individual effort. The goveni- 
m(>nt felt itself absolved from responsibility. If the people 
desired schools they could have them by i)aving for ihcm. The 
church would license proper teachers and the schools could be 
supported by private contributions. 



78 

This was the educational inheritance of the new State. The 
first education law passed by the new state government had 
to do with the establishment of a state university. There was 
no recognition of any need for state common schools. The evi- 
dent purpose of the first University Law was to establish a private 
educational institution and not to institute a comprehensive sys- 
tem of public education. The differentiation between the two 
ideas is shown by the fact that when the Legislature passed the 
first Common School Law (1795) the Regents of the state uni- 
versity were not made the instrumentality for administering the 
new law. The university had to do with private educational 
institutions while the state government was then about to try 
an experiment in public education. The Legislature, accordingly, 
left the university at one side and used means with which they 
were familiar, namely, the township governments. Township 
government was a colonial inheritance and was recognized and 
perpetuated by the first constitution of the State, which guar- 
anteed to the people of the town the right to elect their own ofticers. 
The towns themselves had an organized government and it was 
natural that the State should resort to these local governments 
for the machinery to cany out the new plan. It is also probable 
that the Xew England to^vnship school policy had an influence 
in shaping the New York statute. Massachusetts in 1789, six 
years before the New York law, had enacted a common school 
law by which each town was directed to maintain public schools. 
There was no central administration at all, the whole subject, 
including taxation, being committed to the people of the town, 
who might subdivide the town into school districts. The New 
York law was constructed on this model. The town was made 
the basis of school administration and taxation, and local officers 
were made responsible for the enforcement of the law. The 
New York statute was strikingly difl^erent in one respect, how- 
over, in that the state contriliuted funds from its treasury for the 
support of local schools, while in Massachusetts the schools were 
maintained wholly at local expense. In neither State was there 
any central state supervision. 

A speech by Governor Clinton in 1802 indicates that the first 
Common School Law was a failure. The revival of the common 
school plan in 1812 included the idea of local supervision but 
added the element of state supervision by a Superintendent of 
Common Schools. The duties of this office were transferred to the 



79 

Secretary of State in 1821, who administered them until 1854 
when the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction was 
created. Since 1812 the State has maintained an unbroken policy 
of supervising public schools through one state officer or another. 
The growth of educational policy in the state of New York 
was rapid in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The State 
increasingly assumed responsibility for the education of its 
citizens. Years before the adoption of the educational section 
of the Constitution of 1894 the Legislature was exercising its 
rights with respect to public education, and this gradual develop- 
ment of the idea of state control over this matter became crystal- 
ized in the fundamental law of the state as Article IX of the 
Constitution of 1894. 

The Evolutioa^ of Public Education in the Present City 

OF New York 

Up to 1898 when the Greater New York Charter (Chapter 378 
of the Laws of 1897) became effective, the history of education 
in what is now the City of New York was the history of the 
several independent communities which, by consolidation at that 
time, or by earlier consolidation with the constituent munici- 
palities, became the Greater City. Before treating of the devel- 
opment subsequent to 1898, therefore, there will be outlined the 
growth of a public educational system in the former City of I^ew 
York, in the City of Brooklyn and very briefly in what are now 
the other two boroughs. These sketches should afford a suffi- 
ciently clear picture of the experimental and inconsistent char- 
acter of the legislative and other provisions through which the 
present city's educational system was developed. 

The earliest history of education in the territory now con- 
tained within the City of New York is little different from the 
general history of the State. L^p to the Ecvolutionarv "War and 
for some years thereafter there is nothing of gi'eat significance 
to differentiate the treatment accorded to schools in the City from 
that accorded to schools outside the City. But early in the nine- 
teenth century the individual school history of the City l)Cgan, 
and it is at that time that the following outline commences. 

Thr Former City of New Yorh 

In 1805 there was a new and strictly local development in 
educational policy in the shape of the formation of a society 
incorporated by the Legislature under an act entitled " To Incor- 



80 

porate the Society Instituted in the City of New York for the 
Establishment of a Free School for the Education of Poor Chil- 
dren who do not Belong to or Are not Provided for by any 
Religious Society.'' 

The school opened by this Society in 1806 with funds pro- 
vided by private subscription marked the beginning of what in 
later years became the public school system of the City. It soon 
became evident that this first school must be followed by others, 
and in 1807 the Society obtained an appropriation from the 
Legislature and also assistance from the municipal authorities 
to enable it to furnish additional educational facilities. These 
early schools were, however, of a strictly eleemosynary character. 

In 1808 the Society's name was changed by the Legislature to 
'• The Free School Society of New York " and its powers were 
extended to cover "all children who are the proper objects of a 
gratuitous education." The first apportionment of the State 
common school fund established in 1805 was made in 1815 and 
the Free School Society then received $3,708.14: as its share of 
the amount paid to the City and County of jSTew York. Under 
the Act of 1813 permitting the city to participate in the common 
school fund, the City's portion was paid to the Free School Society, 
the Orphan Asylum Society, the Society of the Economical School 
in the City of New York, the African Free School and to such 
" incorporated religious societies in said City as now support or 
hereafter shall establish charity schools within the said City who 
may apply for the same." The State funds thus apportioned 
were dedicated solely to the payment of teachers' salaries. 

In 1817, however, the Free School Society, finding that the 
Lancasterian system was so economical that the State moneys 
were more than enough for teachers' salaries, secured permission 
from the Legislature to apply the surplus to the erection of build- 
ings or any other needful purpose. In 1822 the Bethel Baptist 
Church, which participated in the common school fund under the 
law of 1813, secured a similar dispensation from the Legislature. 
Considerable alarm was felt by the Free School Society and by 
the other church schools lest this lead to a perversion of State 
school funds to sectarian rather than to school purposes. Repeated 
attempts were made to have the Legislature repeal the exemption 
made in favor of the Bethel Baptist Church, but without success. 
The scene of the controversy was moved from Albany to New 
York by the passage of a law in 1824 placing the distribution 



81 

of the school fund for Xew York City in the hands of the Com^ 
mon Council. In 1825 the Common Council passed an ordinance 
excluding all religious societies from participation in the income 
from the common school fund, leaving only the Free School 
Society, the Mechanics' Society, the Orphan Asylum Society and 
the African Free Schools as beneficiaries. 

The Free School Society was eager to extend the field of its 
operations and in 1824 suggested that its schools which had 
suffered from the stigma that they were charity schools should 
also receive as pupils children of parents able and willing to pay 
small sums for instruction. In 1826 the Legislature granted a 
new charter whereby the Society's name was changed to " The 
Public School Society of Xew York," whereby the Society was 
permitted to charge a moderate fee for instniction, provided that 
no child be denied the benefits of education because unable to 
pay (this pay system proved unsuccessful and was abolished in 
1832), and whereby the Society was authorized 

" to convey their school edifices and other real estate to the 
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, 
upon such terms and conditions and in such forms as shall 
be agreed upon between the parties, taking back from the 
said corporation a perpetual lease thereof upon condition 
that the same shall be exclusively and perpetually applied 
to the purposes of education." 

The Society was not satisfied with the adequacy of the system 
of schools existing in 1828. It estimated that 12,000 children 
between five and twelve years of age were entirely without means 
of instruction and it stated that the principle which had led to 
the recent change from free schools to public schools should be 
extended so that schools "should be supported from public reve- 
nue, should be public property, and should be open to all, not as 
a charity but as a matter of common right." The specific recom- 
mendation was then made that a tax be levied of half a mill upon 
the dollar of assessed city property , and a vigorous effort was 
made to arouse public sentiment in favor of this tax measure, the 
result being the enactment by the Legislature in 1829 of a tax 
law levying a local tax of one-eightieth of one per cent. 

A controversv as to the application of ])ublic school moneys to 
the support of schools under the control of religious societies com- 
menced in 1840 and had far-reaching consequences. The Roman 
Catholic churches which maintained free schools requested from 



82 

the Common Council a share of the school moneys. Similar 
requests were made by a Hebrew congregation and by the Scotch 
Presbyterian church. They were all strenuously opposed by the 
Public School Society and were denied by the Board of Assistant 
Aldermen. The Catholics then petitioned the Board of Alder- 
men, which after a public hearing on the matter, denied the 
request. 

The Legislature was the next point of attack and lengthy mei 
orials were submitted by the proponents and opponents of tl 
plan. All of these documents were referred to John C. Spence 
the Secretary of State and ex-officio state Superintendent of Coi 
mon Schools. Mr. Spencer studied the entire problem and the 
outlined a plan of education in Xew York City providing for tl 
election of a Commissioner of Common Schools in each ward ; fd 
the extension of the general school laws of the State to the Citi 
with certain modifications ; for the transfer to the elected Cori 
missioners of " the schools of the Public School Society and tl 
schools of the other associations and asylums now receiving tl 
public money as schools under their general jurisdiction, leavin 
the immediate government and management of them to thei 
respective trustees and directors" ; for the establishment, by tl: 
Commissioners, of schools in other parts of the city as distric 
schools, and for the payment of the public school money by th 
Chamberlain directly to the Commissioners. The Legislature pos 
poned action until January, 1842, and the school questio: 
became an ini])ortant issue in the city campaign. 

In his annual message for 1842 Governor Seward gave co 
siderable space to the school problem in New York City, savin 
among other things: 

^'Happily in this, as in other instances, the evil is dis- 
covered to have had its origin no deeper than in a departure 
from the equality of general laws. In our general system of 
common schools, trustees chosen by tax-paying citizens, levy 
taxes, build school-houses, employ and pay teachers, and 
govern schools which are subject to visitation by similarly 
elected inspectors, who certify the qualifications of teachers 
and all schools thus constituted participate in just propor- 
tion in the public moneys, which are conveyed to them by 
commissioners also elected by the people. ... In the 
public school system of the city, one hundred persons are 
trustees and inspectors, and, by continued consent of the 






83 

Common Council, are the dispensers of an annual average 
sum of $35,000, received from the Common School Fund of 
the State, and also of a sum equal to $95,000, derived from 
an undiscriminating tax upon the real and personal estates 
of the City They build school-houses, chietiy with public 
funds and appoint and remove teachers, fix their compensa- 
tion, and prescribe the moral, intellectual, and religious 
instruction which one-eighth of the rising generation of the 
State shall be required to receive. Their powers, more effec- 
tive and far-reaching than are exercised by the municipality 
[ of the City, are net derived from the community whose chil- 
I dren are educated and whose property is taxed, nor even 
from the State, which is so great an almoner, and whose 
welfare is so deeply concerned, but from an incorporated 
and perpetual association, which grants, upon pecuniary 
subscription, the privileges even of life membership, and 
yet holds in fee simple the public-school edifices, valued at 
eight hundred thousand dollars. Lest there might be too 
much responsibility, even tO' the association, that body can 
elect only one-half of the trustees, and those thus selected 
appoint their fifty associates. The philanthropy and patrio- 
tism of the present managers of the public schools, and their 
efficiency in imparting instruction, are cheerfully and grate- 
fully admitted. Nor is it necessary to maintain that agents 
thus selected will liecome unfaithful, or that a system that 
so jealously excludes popular interference must necessarily 
be unequal in its operation. It is only insisted that the insti- 
tution, after a fair and sufficient trial, has failed to gain 
that broad confidence reposed in the general system of the 
State, and indispensable to every scheme of universal edu- 
cation. . . . T submit, therefore, with entire willingness to 
approve whatever adequate remedy you may propose, the 
expediency of restoring to the people of the City of jN'ew York 
— what I am sure the peoj>le of no other part of the State 
would, upon any consideration, relinquish — the education of 
their children. For this purpose, it is only necessary to vest 
the control of the common schools in a board to be composed 
of commissioners elected by the people; which board shall 
apportion the school moneys among all the schools, including 
those now existing, which shall be organized and conducted in 
conformity to its general regulations and the laws of the 
State, in the proportion of the number of pupils instructed. 



84 

It is not left doubtful tliat the restoration, to the common 
schools of the City, of this simple and equal feature of the 
common schools of the State, would remove every com- 
plaint, . . ." 

By chapter 150, Laws of 1842, entitled "An act to extend to the 
City and county of New York the provisions of the general act in 
relation to common schools " the Legislature established the first 
Board of Education for the City. The statute provided that there 
should be elected in each ward at special elections held in June, 
two Commissioners of Common Schools, two Inspectors of Com- 
mon Schools and five Trustees of Common Schools. The Com- 
missioners were to constitute a Board of Education. The Board 
had very little power, however. Its importance can be measured 
by the fact that the law required it to meet at least once in three 
months. The real authority was vested in the ward officers. Under 
the statute each ward was to be considered as a to^^m for the pur- 
poses of school administration ; the ward trustees initiated new 
school projects and these projects, if approved by the respective 
inspectors and commissioners, became binding on the city. The 
supervisors of the city and county were required to raise annually 
by tax a sum equal to the amount of the State apportionment of 
school moneys, plus a special tax of one-twentieth of one per cent 
of the total assessed valuation, plus such further amount as was 
necessary. The Board of Education distributed the school moneys 
among the wards on the basis of average attendance, and the 
ward officers had charge of the expenditure of the funds. The 
schools of the Public School Society and those of other incorpo- 
rated societies were continued under the management of their 
respective trustees. It was further provided that no school should 
receive any portion of the school moneys in which "any religious 
sectarian doctrine or tenet shall be taught, inculcated or practiced." 

This act proved unsatisfactory and was, therefore, amended 
in 1843 and 1844. By chapter 320, Laws of 1844, passed May Y, 
1844, the same school officers were provided for as in the first 
act, but with a transfer of powers from the ward officers to the 
central Board of Education. New school projects deemed desir- 
able by the ward officers had to be submitted to the Board of 
Education for approval before they became effective, with the 
provision that appeals from the Board's decision could be made 
to the State Superintendent of Common Schools whose determina- 
tion was binding for one year. A form of local supervision was 



85 

also established under tins act in that it authorized the Board 
of Supervisors to appoint a County Superintendent of Common 
Schools for a two-year term. The compensation of this officer 
was fixed at $2.00 a day and necessary expenses. The schools 
established under the Acts of 1842, 1843 and 1844 were desig- 
ited as ward schools. 

But the double system of schools and of public and private 
!hool control was not a happy one. There was friction between 
le Board of Education and the Public School Society and in 
846 the Board questioned the Society's right to erect new school- 
ouses. A hearing was held and the Board decided that since 
le Act of 1844 the Society had had no such right. The Society 
ppealed to the Legislature which in 1848 passed a law legalizing 
hose schools which the Society had established since May 7, 
844, but providing that it should establish no others without the 
onsent of the Board of Education. 

In 1851 the Legislature passed an act (Chapter 386) "to 
anend, consolidate and reduce to one act the various acts relative 
the common schools of the City of ISTew York." By this act 
he powers of the Board of Education were materially enlarged; 
school funds were deposited in the city treasury and withdrawn 
oy the Board as a whole instead of being handled by the separate 
commissioners. The Board was given authority to make rules 
and regulations to secure economy and accountability and was 
authorized to appoint a City Superintendent of Schools, i\.ssistant 
Superintendents and a Superintendent of School Buildings. For 
the past ten years there had been a County Superintendent of 
Schools elected by the Board of Supervisors, but he was not 
directly amenable to the Board of Education. The City Superin- 
tendent was now empowered to visit schools, inquire into all mat- 
ters pertaining to the administration thereof and to advise with 
the trustees. The same school officers were continued but their 
terms of office were adjusted to a change made by an earlier 
statute, whereby the special June elections were abolished and 
provision made for the election of school officers at the general 
elections. The school system was really established on a pretty 
independent basis by this law. One very sig-nificant provision 
required the City to raise annually by tax not only the equivalent 
of the State apportionment as prescribed by the general State 
law, and not only one-twentieth of one percent on the assessed 
valuations as prescribed by another special statute, but also " such 



86 

additional sums as the Board of Education * * * shall have 
reported to be necessary." 

in 1853 the Legislature ended the dual control of the City's 
public schools by joining the schools of the Public School Society 
and those of the Board of Education and providing for the trans- 
fer to the City of all the property of the Public School Society. 
The same law provided for the appointment by the Society from 
among its trustees of fifteen commissioners of common schools 
to hold office until January 1, 1855, and also for three trustees 
of common schools " for each ward of said City in which one or 
more of the schools of said Society are now established " to serve 
until the first of January, 1855, 1856 and 1857, respectively, and 
for the merging of its schools into the system of common schools 
established by law. In 1853, therefore, the Board of Education 
consisted of 59 members, two commissioners from each of the 22 
wards and the 15 representatives of the Public School Society. 
The latter remained in office vmtil January 1, 1855, when the 
number of commissioners again became 44. The law also limited 
to $4.00 per pupil the amount which the Board of Education 
could require annually from the City in addition to the equivalent 
of the State apportionment and to the yield of the special tax of 
one-twentieth of one per cent. 

Xine years later, in 1864, an act was passed establishing seven 
school districts in the City of New York and reducing the Board 
of Education from 44 members elected by wards to 21 members 
elected by districts, each district to elect one commissioner of 
conmion schools each year. The new law also reduced the num- 
ber of trustees elected in each ward from eight to five, provided 
for three inspectors in each of the seven districts to be named by 
the ^faycr subject to confirmation by the Board of Education. 
The power of appointing teachers and janitors was retained by 
the tiiistees, but nominations of principals and vice-principals 
made by the trustees were subject to approval by the Board of 
Education, and the Board was also given authority in the matter 
of the removal of teachers. 

A measure was introduced in the Legislature of 1867 which, 
although it failed of passage, deserves mention at the present 
juncture. It provided for the abolition of the Board of Educa- 
tion, the trustees and the inspectors and created a commission of 
seven, termed the ]\fetropolitan Board of Instruction, and 
appointed by the Governor and the Senate. This was to be a 
paid board and its members were to hold office for eight years. 



87 

In 1SG9 the Legislature passed an act providing for a Board 
of Education of twelve members who were to be appointed by the 
mayor and to serve until December 31, 1871. It was further 
provided that at the general election of 1871 twelve Commis- 
sioners of Common Schools should be voted for on a general ticket, 
recognition being given to the principle of minority representa- 
tion. This law was repealed in 1870, so that the election pro- 
vided for was never held. 

The Act of 1870 "to reorganize the local government of the 
City of New York" was amended in 1871 by Chapter 574, which 
created a Department of Public Instruction as one of the depart^ 
ments of the city government, and turned over to it all the powers 
and duties of the Board of Education. The existing Board was 
legislated out of office and provision made for the appointment 
by the Mayor of twelve commissioners for terms of five years, 
recognition being given to the principle of minority representa- 
tion. The Mayor was also authorized to apjwint the school trus- 
tees and inspectors. This law did away with the machinery of 
ward and district representation and created a centralized school 
system under the ]\rayor. 

But this new arrangement did not last. By Chapter 112 of 
the Laws of 1873 the seven school districts set up by the law of 
LS()4 were re-established, and provision was made for the appoint- 
nunit by the flavor of a Board of Education consisting of twenty- 
one Commissioners of Common Schools whose terms were for three 
years. This Board was empowered to ap|X)int five trustees for 
eacli ward for five year terms and the Mayor was authorized to 
appoint twenty-one inspectors, three from each district. This sys- 
tem remained substantially unchanged until 1896. Its advan- 
tages were said to be the removal of the schools from political 
supervision, the provision of moderate local control by the trus- 
tees, and the estalilisbment of centralized supervision and final 
control by the B(wrd of Education without placing a danger- 
ously great authority in the hands of the central Board. 

The next important modification of the admiiiistrative machin- 
ery of the school system was the abolition by Chapter 387 of the 
Laws of 189G of the ward trustees. These officers had ]x^rsi£ted 
since 1842 and had exercised many important powers. For many 
years they were elected and, under the short-lived act of 1871, 
th(>y Avere a])pointed by the mayor. After 1873 they W(>re 
appointed liy tlie Loavd of E(lucatit)n. T]i(> trustees were often 



88 

attacked by persons interested in the welfare of the schools. It 
was claimed that some of them were illiterate ; that they were 
appointed for political purposes; that they considered the appoint- 
ment of teachers as legitimate patronage and that they showed 
favoritism in promotion and in the selection of contractors. A 
telling argument against the ward trustee system was that it was 
absurd to use the ward as a basis of selection, as some wards had 
very few schools while other wards had many. In 1888, in the 
second ward, for exam})le, there was only one school with but two 
teachers, while in the twelfth ward there were 499 teachers. 

The result of this agitation was the passage of a law by the 
Legislature (Chapter 532, Laws of 1893) providing that the 
j\Jayor should appoint a conmiission to report to the Legislature 
a comprehensive revision of the laws aifecting common schools 
and public education in the City. This commission reported in 
1894 and recommended abolishing the inspectors and depriving 
the trustees of all powers except those of visiting schools and 
reporting on their condition. Some of the trustees' powers were 
■given to the Board of Education and others were conferred on a 
Board of Superintendents, to consist of the City Superintendent 
and twenty Division Superintendents. This Board was given 
large powers. Provision was also made for a Superintendent of 
School Buildings and Supplies. The proposed law failed of pas- 
sage at the 1894 session. It was reintroduced in 1895 with some 
amendments, but failed again. 

Chapter 387 of the Laws of 1896 abolished the trustees and 
gave the Mayor power to appoint five inspectors in each district 
whose duty was to visit schools. The statute also created a Board 
of Superintendents, consisting of the City Superintendent and as 
'many Assistant Superintendents as the Board of Education might 
deem necessary. The professional control of the schools was 
lodged almost entirely in the new Board of Superintendents, 
only a veto power being given to the Board of Education, whose 
composition remained unchanged. 

BrooMyn 

In Brooklyn there was no " Public School Society." The 
schools that were established and maintained there, after the 
recognition by the State that education was a matter of public 
concern, were administered by local authorities subject to the 
general State laws. 



89 

As mentioned al)ove, the State established the common school 
fund in 1805. The first distribution was made in 1815, and in 
1816 a local tax of $2,000 was levied and a common school 
opened in the village of Brooklyn. Several other schools were 
established prior to the incorporation of the City of Brooklyn in 
1834 and the creation of a Board of Education in 1843. But 
prior to 1843 all the schools were organized as special district 
schools. It is true that in 1835 a law was passed (Chapter 129) 
authorizing the Common Council to appoint three trustees of com- 
mon schools in each district, and for the whole City three inspec- 
tors and three commissioners, but the district organization was 
still paramount. 

The statute of 1843, creating a Board of Education, provided 
that the members of the Common Council should be Commissioners 
of Common Schools in and for the City, and that on the first Mon- 
day in April, 1843, they should apj>oint tw^o or more persons to 
represent each of the school districts as members of the Board of 
Education. The full term of office was fixed at three years and 
the Mayor and Deputy County Superintendent of Common Schools 
were made members ex-ofiicio. The new Board was organized 
with only twenty-eight appointed members, as in two districts 
the full number of appointments was not made. The Board was 
authorized in 1848 to appoint a City Superintendent of Common 
Schools, the office of County Superintendent having been abolished 
by statute in 1847. 

By Chapter 143 of the Laws of 1850 the Board of Education 
was made to consist of thirty-three members appointed by the 
Common Council. The law provided that at least one membc:- 
should reside in each district. The terai of office continued to 
be three years. The law of 1854 annexing the City of Williams- 
burg and the town of Bushwick to Brooklyn required the Com- 
mon Council to appoint additional members of the Board of 
Education for the new part of the City, and that body fixed the 
membership at forty-five, of whom thirteen were to be residents 
of the new territory. This number remained unchanged through- 
out the rest of the Board's existence. In 1862 the Mayor was 
given authority to nominate members of the Board of Education, 
subject to confirmation by the Common Council. 

In 1873 the charter was amended by providing that there should 
be a Department of Public Instruction in Brooklyn under the con- 
trol of tlie Board of Education ; that the City Superintendent of 



90 

Schools should be called the Superiuteiident of Public lustruc- 
tion; that his term should be increased from one to three years 
and that the Board of Education might appoint two Associate 
Superintendents for three-year terms. 

The amended charter which was passed May 25, 1880, pro- 
vided that any vacancy in the Board of Education occurring dur- 
ing the remainder of 1880 should be filled b^^ the Mayor and 
Comptroiler (an act passed June 16, 1880, provided that in case 
the Mayor and Comptroller failed to agree, the Auditor of the 
City should become one of the appointing- powers), and any 
vacancy during 1881 should be filled by the Mayor alone. After 
January 1, 1S82, the sole power of appointment was with the 
Mayor. Some confusion resulted in 1886 from the fact that the 
amended charter fixed two-year terms for the heads of all city 
departments without specifically mentioning the Board of Educa- 
tion whose members had been serving three-year terms. In 1882 
Mayor Low acted on the assumption that the Legislature had not 
intended to change the term of office of Board members and made 
regular three-year appointments. His successor, in 1886, took 
the other view, declared vacancies and made appointments on the 
two-year theory and doubt Avas cast on the legality of some of the 
Board's acts. In 1887 the Legislature settled the matter by spe- 
cifically extending the terms of the 1885 and 1886 appointees 
and establishing the three-year term. 

One unique feature of the Brooklyn public school system can- 
not be left untouched upon. The by-laws of the Board of Educa- 
tion of 1843 provided for district committees consisting of the 
Board members for each district. The schools of the district were 
especially committed to these committees. This scheme lasted but 
a short time, being followed by the local school committee, pro- 
vided for by nn nmendment to the by-law^s made soon after the 
leorganization necessitated by the statute of 1850. These local 
school committees consisted of three members for each school. In 
the course of time these committees acquired large powers in the 
appointment and promotion of teachers, in the making of repairs, 
etc., until they were practically supreme in their respective schools. 
This system was continued until the abolition of the Brooklyn 
school board in 1902 and was even then carried over as Section 
llOo of the first Greater ISTew York charter. The abuses of the 
local committee system, particularly with respect to the appoint- 
ment and promotion of teachers, were repeatedly the subject of 
criticism. 



91 

Queens and Bdchmond. 

The Borough of Queens is composed of several formerly inde- 
pendent communities, such as Newtown, Flushing and Jamaica. 
The early history of education is the history of these separate 
towns. The towns became school districts under the general State 
law, the subdivision in Newtown taking place in 1814, and schools 
were established from time to time. In 1870 a portion of New- 
town was incorporated as Long Island City and the schools were 
placed under the city government in charge of a Board of Educa- 
tion of five members appointed by the Mayor. The village of 
Flushing was incorporated in 1837. In 1848 it was provided with 
a Board of Education of five members elected by the people. 

In neither Queens nor Richmond, however, was there any 
central organization in charge of the public schools. There were 
numerous school districts and district officers, but not until the 
incorporation of these two boroughs into the Greater City was, 
there anything that resembled centralized local school authority. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 118 137 2 



L 



